All Sunday games thread (Week 1)

**leachisabeast** · 09-09-2012, 05:45 PM

Name me one QB at the age of 28 who came in and looked as bad as that in their debut, and turned out to be even a back up QB in this league.

That's another thing, his age, he's 28. He was supposed to one of the most pro ready QB's in the draft. It turns out a 3rd round QB looks twice the player he is and a lot more pro ready going by pre season and today. The Browns made a big mistake not giving up more for RG3, they made another mistake passing up on Wilson (as did a load of QB needy teams.)

By the looks of things, he is going to take YEARS to develope if the Browns are really sold on him as their future QB, he could be well into his 30's by then. After he finishes his rookie deal, he's going to be what? 33?

**leachisabeast** · 09-09-2012, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Jsmoove

Funny all these one dimensional teams getting exposed in week 1 greenbay cant run the ball, they can't stop the run defense. San fran is giving them the business

Wait what are you talking about? You have to have a bad defense, no run game, and a pass happy offense to win the superbowl in this day and age.....

**akashicrecorder** · 09-09-2012, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Armchair QB experts ignoring history in favor of their own eyes are equally tiring.

And there's a longer list of them.

Ignoring history? Are you serious? You are hanging your hat on a thin argument.

List A contains the names of all the QBs who looked as terrible as Weeden did today who ended up being good to great. List B contains the names of all the QBs who looked as terrible as Weeden did today who ended up being second-stringers, third-stringers, or out of the NFL completely (i.e., staying about as incompetent as they looked).

Anyone who says List B doesn't absolutely dwarf List A is either disingenuous or doesn't understand football, and I don't think you don't understand football. List A may have Peyton Manning as a poster boy, but List B is overwhelming. Chances skew highly toward QBs staying about as bad as they look when they look as horrible as Weeden looked today.

**HoustonRaven** · 09-09-2012, 06:22 PM

And if you took my comments into proper context instead of shooting from the hip, you'd understand we are saying the exact same thing.

**The Excellector** · 09-09-2012, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

I know my history, thanks.

My point was that sometimes when people look fundamentally lost and confused, it's because they're going to be fundamentally lost and confused at the NFL level. Brandon Weeden looks incompetent. If he turns out good to great, let us know.

It is extremely tiring not to be able to offer an opinion about a game and a player you have just seen just because everyone wants to sanctimoniously remind people of Peyton Manning. Sometimes the obvious is obvious.

It was obvious, for years, that Peyton Manning was a regular season dome QB who shrunk in the playoffs.

**Jsmoove** · 09-09-2012, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Wait what are you talking about? You have to have a bad defense, no run game, and a pass happy offense to win the superbowl in this day and age.....

you can just tell greenbay have never been tested playing from behind, they all look like they shook up, you can sling the ball all and make big plays but if there's no defense and no run game then what happens when you play a complete team?

**The Excellector** · 09-09-2012, 06:32 PM

Will you guys stop trying to bring other arguments into the debate, making it seem like HoustonRaven said more than he said. He didn't say anything about lists or what he personally thought Weeden would become.

Someone questioned when the last time was that we saw a rookie QB look as bad as Weeden did, actually become a good QB. He gave you Peyton Manning, who did look as bad as Weeden did, especially early in his rookie season. Manning became a good QB.

He didn't say anything else about list A and list B or age 28. A question was asked and he answered it.

**HoustonRaven** · 09-09-2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

Will you guys stop trying to bring other arguments into the debate, making it seem like HoustonRaven said more than he said. He didn't say anything about lists or what he personally thought Weeden would become.

Someone questioned when the last time was that we saw a rookie QB look as bad as Weeden did, actually become a good QB. He gave you Peyton Manning, who did look as bad as Weeden did, especially early in his rookie season. Manning became a good QB.

He didn't say anything else about list A and list B or age 28. A question was asked and he answered it.

This.

**akashicrecorder** · 09-09-2012, 07:26 PM

Say you said or did not say whatever your want. Your tone and implications were clear. Anything else is your being sanctimonious and word-parsing.

**leachisabeast** · 09-09-2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Jsmoove

you can just tell greenbay have never been tested playing from behind, they all look like they shook up, you can sling the ball all and make big plays but if there's no defense and no run game then what happens when you play a complete team?

It really just makes me laugh, people just assume you can win a SB by throwing the ball and nothing else. When you look at the Packers team that won the SB in 2010, they played really good defense, in fact their defense was ranked 5th overall, and they could run the ball better than they do now.

IMO you need to play great on both sides of the ball to win it all, in key games in the play offs, you really need your defense to step up. Look at the Giants (sure bad regular season statistical defense) but they probably played the best defense in the play offs, that was a huge reason why they went on to win the SB in the end.

**leachisabeast** · 09-09-2012, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

Will you guys stop trying to bring other arguments into the debate, making it seem like HoustonRaven said more than he said. He didn't say anything about lists or what he personally thought Weeden would become.

Someone questioned when the last time was that we saw a rookie QB look as bad as Weeden did, actually become a good QB. He gave you Peyton Manning, who did look as bad as Weeden did, especially early in his rookie season. Manning became a good QB.

He didn't say anything else about list A and list B or age 28. A question was asked and he answered it.

I wasn't really debating, just stating my opinion on why I think Weeden is not the answer at QB. From what I've seen, he looks like a project at best, and a project at age 28 is not something the Browns where hoping for when they drafted Weeden.

**The Excellector** · 09-09-2012, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Say you said or did not say whatever your want. Your tone and implications were clear. Anything else is your being sanctimonious and word-parsing.

Then, why ask a question in the first place (In general)?

**The Excellector** · 09-09-2012, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

I wasn't really debating, just stating my opinion on why I think Weeden is not the answer at QB. From what I've seen, he looks like a project at best, and a project at age 28 is not something the Browns where hoping for when they drafted Weeden.

Got you.