Stinger226 Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 1 hour ago, BearFan PHX said: Right, if they are winning 10 games, I cant imagine them firing Flus and moving everyone else up. Even if they think that would be better, its still not something you could really do. I see Flus as kind of a glorified defensive coordinator and executive head coach. I dont see him giving the offense an edge in winning the way that Belichick did for example, even though he was a defensive guy too, and of course I worry that if Waldron takes the offense to the moon, he would be gone to be a head coach somewhere, where Id rather keep him than Flus at that point. But it wouldnt be because Flus was awful but because Waldron gave you more. But like we all said, at that point it wouldnt really be possible even if it was smart because how do you fire a guy who is winning 10+ games a year on a team that is ascending? We have a passing game coordinator named Thomas Brown who is supposed to be incredibly charismatic and likely head coach someday, so he would step into Waldrons shoes if that happened and supposedly wed be in good hands. And to try to see into the future past Waldron and Brown is completely impossible. We should have that problem - winning multiple superbowls and losing two offensive coordinators in a row! If Waldron gets a HC job that means we were highly successful. If we win 10-11 games and make the playoffs, there is no scenario where Poles fires Flus. Even if Waldron was responsible for the boost. It would mean our defense had to be pretty good too. It this happens, Flus is more likely to get extended than be let go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 On 3/7/2024 at 11:56 AM, Alaskan Grizzly said: In the current “Super Bowl era” 24 QBs have been selected #1 overall. Of those 7 have played in and won a Super Bowl. Of the 58 Super Bowls played so far those 7 (~12%) have contributed to 15 Super Bowl wins (~26%). Do you really think Williams is good enough to be in that top 25% of all QBs ever picked? If so, how? Where does he rate against those other 7 that makes you so convinced he’s that “elite”? Others have recently commented on your dismissal of those of us who are still in the Fields camp. And frankly I’m growing tired of it. You continuously volley covert commentary like calling out Fields’ supporters as “crazy” (above) or “delusional” and it’s gotten old. If you want to stick to pure facts and compare I’m good with it. Save the pettiness for somewhere else. So far I’ve seen nothing (on paper) that convinces me that Williams is the next best thing. For me the stats that Fields left collegiately were better than Williams. His overall record far outpaced Williams against much better competition to include the college playoffs . When he faced adversity, both physically (vs clemson 2021) and otherwise (COVID Big 10) he didn’t wither on the vine. Save the “he’s a great guy and terrific athlete” BS because that’s lazy. Williams’ highlight films and NFL prospectus (“takes too many sacks” and is ‘fantastic at improvisation’) point to a younger Justin. Yet when Justin does it, he’s a failure. To tell me Williams is better, collegiately, is just simply not true. And to compare him to how well he’ll measure up to Fields professionally is skeptical at best. I agree Alaskan…. The truth is generational talent can be found anywhere in the draft. If the label of “Generational Talent” goads anther GM under pressure to save his job and not the franchise then a brilliant mind will use that to his advantage and exploit it for a “generational haul” of draft capital! How could anyone fault Poles if he were to do something like this? I mean when Bellichick traded back he was considered “genius”! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 7 minutes ago, ParkerBear7 said: I agree Alaskan…. The truth is generational talent can be found anywhere in the draft. If the label of “Generational Talent” goads anther GM under pressure to save his job and not the franchise then a brilliant mind will use that to his advantage and exploit it for a “generational haul” of draft capital! How could anyone fault Poles if he were to do something like this? I mean when Bellichick traded back he was considered “genius”! I'll buy some of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 4 hours ago, ParkerBear7 said: The truth is generational talent can be found anywhere in the draft. If the label of “Generational Talent” goads anther GM under pressure to save his job and not the franchise then a brilliant mind will use that to his advantage and exploit it for a “generational haul” of draft capital! How could anyone fault Poles if he were to do something like this? I mean when Bellichick traded back he was considered “genius” I agree back. Really like your suggestion and 'yes' it makes too much sense, especially if you see how well Belichick and the Pats were successful for so long in doing it. While on the subject of "generational QBs" and the talk of the odds for #1 QBs winning a Super Bowl, I stumbled across an interesting stat/article regarding the success rate of Heisman Trophy winners in the NFL. The article below I think is a bit older so I'm not sure how accurate it has been since Cam Newton was in the Super Bowl but anyways....in the history of 58 Super Bowls, only 18 players who have won the Heisman have made it to the Super Bowl. Of those 18 players, 7 were QBs; Cam Newton (2016), Matt Leinart (2009), Chris Weinke (2004), Jim Plunkett (1981 and 1984), Roger Staubach (1971, '72, '78 and '79), John Huarte (1969) and Paul Hornung (1967). Of those 7 only three actually played/started in a Super Bowl (Newton, Plunkett and Staubach). So by that rationale, Williams and now Daniels have a little less luster for me. https://www.nfl.com/photos/heisman-winners-and-the-super-bowl-0ap3000000631665 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 16 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said: I agree back. Really like your suggestion and 'yes' it makes too much sense, especially if you see how well Belichick and the Pats were successful for so long in doing it. While on the subject of "generational QBs" and the talk of the odds for #1 QBs winning a Super Bowl, I stumbled across an interesting stat/article regarding the success rate of Heisman Trophy winners in the NFL. The article below I think is a bit older so I'm not sure how accurate it has been since Cam Newton was in the Super Bowl but anyways....in the history of 58 Super Bowls, only 18 players who have won the Heisman have made it to the Super Bowl. Of those 18 players, 7 were QBs; Cam Newton (2016), Matt Leinart (2009), Chris Weinke (2004), Jim Plunkett (1981 and 1984), Roger Staubach (1971, '72, '78 and '79), John Huarte (1969) and Paul Hornung (1967). Of those 7 only three actually played/started in a Super Bowl (Newton, Plunkett and Staubach). So by that rationale, Williams and now Daniels have a little less luster for me. https://www.nfl.com/photos/heisman-winners-and-the-super-bowl-0ap3000000631665 I believe this is a myth. Beli and the Pats haven't had a draft pick get a 2nd contract in over a decade. They did do a ton of trading down - which is not bad - but their ability to actually benefit and get good players was poor, especially the more that Beli led those drafts. Everything got worse once Brady left because Brady's skill-set could elevate others around him. Not knocking Beli the coach - but they really really got away with horrendous draft picks and free agency for a long time because of the greatness of their QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted March 14 Report Share Posted March 14 No one is sayingt a #1 pick is a sure thing, but we posted allt he charts and analysis that shows the higher the pick, the more likely the player is to be good. And that's just basic. Also, not every draft is the same, sometimes there is a special player who is a better prospect than anyone who has come out in several years. Even last year, everyone was saying that WIlliams was a better prospect than anyone int he draft that year. Some people had Stroud rated higher, a lot had Young, and for sure lots of writers are bad at spotting talent, IF they even watch the film. I dont think a lot really do - I think they read and look at highlights. But if you watch the tape, you can see why Williams is a really good bet. And that's why so many teams would take him at #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 14 Author Report Share Posted March 14 58 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said: No one is sayingt a #1 pick is a sure thing, but we posted allt he charts and analysis that shows the higher the pick, the more likely the player is to be good. And that's just basic. Also, not every draft is the same, sometimes there is a special player who is a better prospect than anyone who has come out in several years. Even last year, everyone was saying that WIlliams was a better prospect than anyone int he draft that year. Some people had Stroud rated higher, a lot had Young, and for sure lots of writers are bad at spotting talent, IF they even watch the film. I dont think a lot really do - I think they read and look at highlights. But if you watch the tape, you can see why Williams is a really good bet. And that's why so many teams would take him at #1. If Poles doesn't choose him it's not going to be because of talent, it will be a work ethic issue, a selfish attitude something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.