I remember a time where back-up QB's were back-ups because they were'nt as good of a player as the starter. What I am noticing more often now is these backups that are coming in for these "Starters" are just as good if not better than the ones they are stepping in for.
So to recap some examples of this in the past year or two:
- Kirk Cousins - Im also kind of bias here because I honestly don't like RG3 lol.
- Josh McCown
- Nick Foles
- Colin Kapernick
- Case Keenum
- Mike Glennon
- Chad Henne - For whatever it's worth mentioning him when youre comparing to B-Gabbz, still fits the bill for this.
Now this is without mentioning there are teams like the Packers who put all their eggs in one basket and when disaster strikes and they call on the second man in line, he just can't do the job.
There are others out there that are still playing well but it's too easily debatable if they if they are AS good or better than the starter. These are just ones I feel stand out as easy targets for this.
My point now being, are these stellar performances coming from rule changes or are these "Back-ups" really this good? I'm debating this myself because guys like McCown have been around for a while and have been back-ups for that while so it leads me to believe its the rules.
Regardless, it seems there are no such things as back-ups anymore, just second starters.
We could always refer to them as bench warmers.
Quote:We could always refer to them as bench warmers.
"Benchwarmers" is a highly offensive and derogitory term, sir. And I implore you discontinue using it in this establishment.
Agree with this idea.
Its become easier to post 300 yard games even if your backup ends up wit 2-3 ints he can still post big numbers. Guys like Hoyer,Tuell, McCown , and Keenum wouldnt have seen the light of day in the 90's and early 2000's and if they did they would finish with a stat line like:
12-29 174yds 1 td - 2 ints being sacked 6 times
Now its more like :
24-40 313 yds 3 tds - 2 ints and being sacked 2 times.
Its definitely getting easier and easier to be a QB when you enter the league knowing alot of defenders will have to second guess hitting you for fear of a absurd penalty that cripples their team. Especially in critical moments (just before the half, 3rd and long deep in the 3rd quarter etc).
Completely disagree.
If your backup is better, either your starter isn't starting material or your backup is a hidden gem. The top 10-15 teams in the league are hosed if their starter goes down.
I believe this is a combination of a couple of things;
1. Today’s rules make it a lot easier for QB's to pass the ball effectively, every year a passing record is broken. The rules have made the bad QB's average, the good QB's great, and the great QB's absolutely unstoppable.
2. Teams are implementing offensive concepts that are prevalent in college, making it easier for guys like Colin Kaepernick, Case Keenum, Nick Foles etc... to transition rather seamlessly to the NFL.
Quote:Completely disagree.
If your backup is better, either your starter isn't starting material or your backup is a hidden gem. The top 10-15 teams in the league are hosed if their starter goes down.
I do agree with that, its just that the success of these backups is previously unheard of. Most of the guys on that list I put up are ones who emerged just this year. Sure there have been cases of backup taking over in the past such as Montana and Young but it wasn't nearly as common. So many shifts were made in just this
one season, due to injury or not, the previously sitting guys are now looking like possibilities for the future.
Quote:"Benchwarmers" is a highly offensive and derogitory term, sir. And I implore you discontinue using it in this establishment.
This is too funny…
Benchwarmers is no more "offensive" or "derogatory" than back-up - if you even view them as that...
Oh, and I implore you to open up a little - because life wouldn't be so stale.
Quote:This is too funny…
Benchwarmers is no more "offensive" or "derogatory" than back-up - if you even view them as that...
**Oh, and I implore you to open up a little - because life wouldn't be so stale.
While I
can disagree I won't bother. My statement to you wasn't meant to be taken so seriously to begin with...
**Can you also go into depth as to where you came to this conclusion? lol
There are two false statements you are trying to make.
"Most teams have backups than can step in and produce good results/numbers."
The truth is, a lot of teams would be up crap's creek without a paddle if their starting QB went down (namely: Packers, Lions, Patriots, Broncos, Saints, 49ers, Ravens, Cardinals, Seahawks, Giants, Steelers, Bengals, Falcons, Panthers). Aside from that, there are a handful of teams who had bad starters to begin with, so there isn't much of a dropoff, if any, when putting in the backup (namely: Jaguars, Jets, Bills, Buccs).
"Success of these backups is previously unheard of."
There have been many cases, before the rule changes, of backup QBs stepping in and exceeding expectations. Here are a few just off the top of my head:
Tom Brady (6th rd pick) was a 2nd string QB and stepped in for an injured Drew Bledsoe. Won 3 Super Bowls.
Kurt Warner (undrafted) was a 2nd string QB and stepped in for an injured Trent Green. Won a Super Bowl.
Marc Bulger (6th rd pick) was a 3rd string QB and stepped in for an injured Kurt Warner.
Doug Flutie (signed from the CFL) was a 2nd string QB and stepped in for an injured Rob Johnson.
Brad Johnson (9th round pick) was a 2nd string QB and stepped in for Warren Moon. Won a Super Bowl.
Quote:There are two false statements you are trying to make.
"Most teams have backups than can step in and produce good results/numbers."
The truth is, a lot of teams would be up crap's creek without a paddle if their starting QB went down (namely: Packers, Lions, Patriots, Broncos, Saints, 49ers, Ravens, Cardinals, Seahawks, Giants, Steelers, Bengals, Falcons, Panthers). Aside from that, there are a handful of teams who had bad starters to begin with, so there isn't much of a dropoff, if any, when putting in the backup (namely: Jaguars, Jets, Bills, Buccs).
"Success of these backups is previously unheard of."
There have been many cases, before the rule changes, of backup QBs stepping in and exceeding expectations. Here are a few just off the top of my head:
Tom Brady (6th rd pick) was a 2nd string QB and stepped in for an injured Drew Bledsoe. Won 3 Super Bowls.
Kurt Warner (undrafted) was a 2nd string QB and stepped in for an injured Trent Green. Won a Super Bowl.
Marc Bulger (6th rd pick) was a 3rd string QB and stepped in for an injured Kurt Warner.
Doug Flutie (signed from the CFL) was a 2nd string QB and stepped in for an injured Rob Johnson.
Brad Johnson (9th round pick) was a 2nd string QB and stepped in for Warren Moon. Won a Super Bowl.
Great examples but they all didn't happen in one season like whats been happening this one. And you really never know how hurt (or saved) a season could be until they are out there actualy making plays. On paper those teams mentioned might look like they are in huge trouble but when it comes time to find out, those guys that were waiting for their chance may show up big.
QB's like Wilson are great but so was Alex Smith last year (this year as well provided he's with a great D now too)...You never know what can be sitting behind your current starters, regardless on how good you think they are. They say theres always someone better at something than you out there. And a lot of teams in recent season have been finding that those people have been closer than they expect.
Quote: I remember a time where back-up QB's were back-ups because they were'nt as good of a player as the starter. What I am noticing more often now is these backups that are coming in for these "Starters" are just as good if not better than the ones they are stepping in for.
So to recap some examples of this in the past year or two:
- Kirk Cousins - Im also kind of bias here because I honestly don't like RG3 lol.
- Josh McCown
- Nick Foles
- Colin Kapernick
- Case Keenum
- Mike Glennon
- Chad Henne - For whatever it's worth mentioning him when youre comparing to B-Gabbz, still fits the bill for this.
Now this is without mentioning there are teams like the Packers who put all their eggs in one basket and when disaster strikes and they call on the second man in line, he just can't do the job.
There are others out there that are still playing well but it's too easily debatable if they if they are AS good or better than the starter. These are just ones I feel stand out as easy targets for this.
My point now being, are these stellar performances coming from rule changes or are these "Back-ups" really this good? I'm debating this myself because guys like McCown have been around for a while and have been back-ups for that while so it leads me to believe its the rules.
Regardless, it seems there are no such things as back-ups anymore, just second starters.
I really don't get the love for K. Cousins. What's he done? So far he's just Rob Johnson. We'll get to find out more the next three games.
Keenum has
yet to win a game. That's a stellar performance?
Kapernick has drafted by Harbaugh to be his QB. Not really a backup.
Glennon was drafted to start. The Bucs didn't waste much time getting rid of Freeman.
In you're later post you said this hasn't happened like this in one year. How do you know that? And Kapernick isn't a backup just playing this year.
I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Quote:This is too funny…
Benchwarmers is no more "offensive" or "derogatory" than back-up - if you even view them as that...
Oh, and I implore you to open up a little - because life wouldn't be so stale.
Whooshed
Exactly what Adam said. The only two "backups" that are having above average years are Josh McCown and Nick Foles. I will give you those two examples, but even their situations can be explained better than "rule changes". Nick Foles was drafted as a backup but with potential to start and is playing in an a Chip-Kelly offense loaded with talent. The Chicago Bears have their best WR core in team history. Marshall/Jeffery/Forte is the best WR/WR/RB pass-catching lineup in the NFL. Cutler was having the best season of his career before McCown stepped in. However, what Foles and McCown are doing is extraordinary, so I will give you those two examples.
The rest of your examples? Meh.
Case Keenum is 0-7 in his NFL career. His last four games he has thrown for less than 200ypg, 2 TDs, and 4 INTs. Keenum had a nice couple games, but he has not been "stellar". QB rating = 83.7. Not stellar.
Mike Glennon. Started 9 games this year and is yet to throw for 300 yards or more than 2 TDs in a single game. He has played well for a rookie, but he hasn't been extraordinary. Also, he was drafted to be the starter. QB rating = 86.4. Not stellar.
Chad Henne. On pace with career averages. Has more INTs than TDs. QB rating = 74.9. Definitely not stellar.
Kirk Cousins. Career 75.9 QB rating. In his only action this season he is 12 of 25 for 107 yards, 0 TDs, 2 INTs, and a fumble. Definitely not stellar.
Colin Kaepernick. Was drafted in the 2nd round, had a year to learn, and stepped into a great situation. I don't think Kaepernick has been "stellar". He as been good, but it definitely isn't shocking.
Now let's take a look at backup QBs who have came in this year and looked below average to terrible.
Terrelle Pryor, Matt Barkley, Scott Tolzein, Kellen Clemens, Seneca Wallace, Josh Freeman
Like Adam said, you are seeing something that is not there.
Regarding past years, you are wrong also. I gave you some extremely stellar performances from backups (Warner, Brady). I can go trough nearly every season and list multiple backup QBs that had better seasons than Keenum, Henne, Glennon, and Cousins.
For example, 2006.
Tony Romo, DAL. 19 TDs, 13 INTs. 95.1 rating.
Jeff Garcia, PHI. 10 TDs, 2 INTs. 95.8 rating.
Jay Cutler, DEN. 9 TDs, 4 INTs. 88.5 rating.
Charlie Batch, PIT. 5 TDs, 0 INTs. 121.0 rating.
Mark Brunell, WASH. 8 TDs, 4 INTs. 86.5 rating.
Kyle Boller, BAL. 5 TDs, 2 INTs. 104.0 rating.
A.J. Feely, PHI. 3 TDs, 0 INTs.
Sage Rosenfels. 3 TDs, 1 INT. 103.0 rating.
The idea that "backups stepping in and doing well in previous years was unheard of" is just completely wrong.
Quote:There are two false statements you are trying to make.
"Most teams have backups than can step in and produce good results/numbers."
The truth is, a lot of teams would be up crap's creek without a paddle if their starting QB went down (namely: Packers, Lions, Patriots, Broncos, Saints, 49ers, Ravens, Cardinals, Seahawks, Giants, Steelers, Bengals, Falcons, Panthers). Aside from that, there are a handful of teams who had bad starters to begin with, so there isn't much of a dropoff, if any, when putting in the backup (namely: Jaguars, Jets, Bills, Buccs).
While the Lions probably can't afford to lose Matthew Stafford for the majority of a season, I'm thrilled that Shaun Hill is still the team's # 2 QB. Hill is ideal as a # 2 QB for the Lions, as he knows the Offense as well as the coaches and has performed well for the most part when given opportunities.
I'm very concerned the Lions won't be able to retain Shaun Hill in 2014, as the team's salary cap situation is problematic and that the demand for QB's on the open market is greater than the supply. While I believe Matthew Stafford is a top 10 NFL QB, I'm convinced that the drop-off between Stafford and Hill is much less than the drop-off between Calvin Johnson and any WR the Lions have had for a long time. As we have seen, when Megatron isn't available, the Lions Offense basically stops functioning.
Agree about Shaun Hill, thats another guy I wouldn't mind stealing to 'mentor' a developing QB