The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-30-2013, 11:00 AM   #1
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default Philip Rivers "middle-class QB"

Goof read from Barnwell on the "Gang of Four" (Luck, RGIII, Wilson, Kaepernick) and how they've changed the QB landscape in the NFL and perhaps made some veteran QB's less valuable.

Quote:
You want a name for this middle-class quarterback? Well, if you want to pick one, the patron saint of the quarterback suburbs in 2013 is Philip Rivers. It's impossible to truly value players, but take a moment and go team-by-team and think about how many teams wouldn't want to trade their starting quarterbacks for the San Diego starter. I counted 16 starting quarterbacks (Brady, Brees, Cutler, Flacco, Griffin, Kaepernick, Luck, both Manning brothers, Newton, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Romo, Ryan, Schaub, and Wilson) I wouldn't trade for Rivers, making him as middle-class as middle-class gets. Your mileage may vary, but unless you routinely find yourself wearing sky blue west of Carolina, chances are that my valuation isn't far off from yours.

Now, Philip Rivers isn't by any means a bad quarterback. Three years ago, he was arguably the best downfield passer in football. He's 31 now, and whether it's due to the decline in his offensive line or a change in his style of play, he's become a checkdown machine. He was below average in most of Pro-Football-Reference.com's index statistics this past season, and he'll no longer be under the tutelage of noted quarterback guru Norv Turner. Rivers is likely to be a good-but-not-great quarterback this year, with a slim possibility that he will break out and return to his previous Pro Bowl–caliber form, as well as a slim possibility that he'll decline precipitously and become an unplayable quarterback. That's as middle-class as it gets in the NFL.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...an-quarterback
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-30-2013, 11:03 AM   #2
Rabb
No Luca, No!
 
Rabb's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,654

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dynamite Monkey
Default

Rabb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 11:04 AM   #3
OBF1
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 15,657

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Marvin Austin
Default

Philip "Average" Rivers, sounds over rated to me
OBF1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 11:15 AM   #4
ludo21
RIP Darrent Williams
 
ludo21's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 19,513

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Paul Ernster
Default

Article is about how all the top QB's are going to be UDFA and teams are going to go moneyball and only draft high QB to supplant them because they are so cheap these days.....

uhhhh, those 3 guys that came out and played so well are once in a generation thing, not once a year barnwell....idiot
ludo21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 11:21 AM   #5
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ludo21 View Post
Article is about how all the top QB's are going to be UDFA and teams are going to go moneyball and only draft high QB to supplant them because they are so cheap these days.....

uhhhh, those 3 guys that came out and played so well are once in a generation thing, not once a year barnwell....idiot
That's not at all what the article says. What it does say is this:

Quote:
Along with 2011 first overall pick Cam Newton, the Gang of Four have created a class of bargains at the league's most important position. Those bargains come courtesy of the new collective bargaining agreement reached after that year's lockout, a deal that drastically reduced the compensation given to draftees in their rookie contracts, especially at the top of the draft...
...
...the costs of "starting over" with a young quarterback are now so low that taking a shot with somebody like Tannehill or even Geno Smith is much more palatable than it was five years ago, when going after a top draft pick meant that you could end up with JaMarcus Russell and a $13.6 million cap hit by his third season in the league.

It's unlikely that we'll see quarterback crops emerge every year to the extent that the Gang of Four did this past season, but this issue isn't going away. Young quarterbacks on rookie contracts are going to remain an enormous bargain for the foreseeable future. That's going to create a lot of upheaval in the middle class over the next several years.
In other words, you missed the point.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 11:50 AM   #6
boltaneer
17
 
boltaneer's Avatar
 
ATTA BABY!

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America's Finest City
Posts: 4,431
Default

What a terrible article. (And I'm not ripping it just because he 'picks' on Rivers.)

RG3 replaced Rex Grossman.
Russel Wilson replaced Charlie Whitehurst/Seneca Wallace.
Tannehill replaced Matt Moore and Chad Henne.
Kaepernick replaced Alex Smith (who is below "middle-class" IMO).
Luck replaced Peyton Manning but that was a unique situation with a much older quarterback coming off a serious injury.

Aside from the Colts, it's not like these teams went out on a limb and replaced a proven veteran, which is what he's trying to insinuate teams should do with this article.

Strange article that makes little sense. However, had he referenced a team like the Chiefs, who passed on a QB like Geno Smith and instead TRADED for a "middle-class quarterback" like Alex Smith, then his article would have made a little more sense.
boltaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 11:51 AM   #7
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 10,262

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

The only problem with their big 4 is the guys that run around alot, are all young. This is nothing new. They guys that run often, just as some have in the past, get dinged up more often then pocket passers. Vick was every bit as talented as RGIII. He could run, he had a cannon. But when you run too much, you eventually pay the price.
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 11:53 AM   #8
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltaneer View Post
What a terrible article...
See my post that preceeds yours. You're missing the point.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 12:12 PM   #9
boltaneer
17
 
boltaneer's Avatar
 
ATTA BABY!

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America's Finest City
Posts: 4,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
See my post that preceeds yours. You're missing the point.
No, I'm not missing the point.

I understand what he's trying to say but he goes about it entirely wrong. His article applies to a team like the Chiefs or the Cardinals rather than the Chargers.

Also, you have to factor in that this year's QB class was not highly thought of. I still think the Chiefs should have taken a Geno Smith rather than a never-been in Alex Smith but I understand their logic if the Chiefs really believed that this QB draft class stinks. Ditto for the Cardinals who decided that Carson Palmer is a good band-aid until they feel like they can go after a franchise QB.

RG3, Luck, Wilson and Tannehill are terrible examples in the point he is trying to make.

Kaepernick is really the only one that backs up his point, though that's giving more credit to Alex Smith than he deserves IMO, but I'll give him that one anyway. However that's only one example that works.
boltaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 12:19 PM   #10
ludo21
RIP Darrent Williams
 
ludo21's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 19,513

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Paul Ernster
Default

Rivers is due to get back to his old form with a beefed up O line. Highly doubtful Rivers looks middle class this year AGAIN
ludo21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 12:23 PM   #11
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltaneer View Post
No, I'm not missing the point.
But you clearly are. You said this:

Quote:
...it's not like these teams went out on a limb and replaced a proven veteran, which is what he's trying to insinuate teams should do with this article.
He's not "insinuating" teams "should do" this. He's saying that because you can now get rookie QB's for cheap teams will be less likely to hang on to, or go after, aging veterans and more likely to take a chance on a young, cheap QB. It's just common sense. In year's past, because drafting a QB high was such a huge risk because of the cost, you'd be more likely to go after the aging vet. Not so anymore. Got it?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 12:47 PM   #12
boltaneer
17
 
boltaneer's Avatar
 
ATTA BABY!

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America's Finest City
Posts: 4,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
But you clearly are. You said this:



He's not "insinuating" teams "should do" this. He's saying that because you can now get rookie QB's for cheap teams will be less likely to hang on to, or go after, aging veterans and more likely to take a chance on a young, cheap QB. It's just common sense. In year's past, because drafting a QB high was such a huge risk because of the cost, you'd be more likely to go after the aging vet. Not so anymore. Got it?
And every example he used in that article FAILED to make this point, with the exception being Kaepernick (who was drafted before the new CBA), unless we're agreeing that teams are suddenly less likely to hang on to guys like Seneca Wallace, Charlie Whitehurst, Matt Moore, Chad Henne, Rex Grossman.

Teams replaced those guys because they SUCKED, not because they're trying to go younger and cheaper.

And what about Alex Smith? What about Carson Palmer? Those teams didn't take a chance on a younger cheaper quarterback and went after aging veterans.
boltaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 01:07 PM   #13
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,144

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Goof read from Barnwell on the "Gang of Four" (Luck, RGIII, Wilson, Kaepernick) and how they've changed the QB landscape in the NFL and perhaps made some veteran QB's less valuable.


http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...an-quarterback
I'm calling this article out for it being flawed in it's analysis. Just like 2 years ago when it claimed the Broncos would be worse with Manning based on TT being the QB. It used some kind of dumbass system to claim the Broncos were gonna be worse even though the Broncos wouldn't be running the same offense. I mean, how much more wrong can that be?

It remains to be seen as to how Luck, RGIII, Wilson and Kaepernick (and Tannehill for that matter) will do in their sophomore seasons. There is something known as the "sophomore slump" for players in the NFL and that is because all the other teams have film on the player now and can gameplan against said player. No where is this more true than the QB position. See Cam Newton as EXAMPLE A.

Now, Luck is gonna be fine. He's the exception.

I think Rivers will come out of his slump this year. He may not be a probowler but I think he will be back up in the top 10 QBs in the NFL. JMHO of course.

Last edited by Tombstone RJ; 05-30-2013 at 01:13 PM..
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 01:18 PM   #14
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,144

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltaneer View Post
And every example he used in that article FAILED to make this point, with the exception being Kaepernick (who was drafted before the new CBA), unless we're agreeing that teams are suddenly less likely to hang on to guys like Seneca Wallace, Charlie Whitehurst, Matt Moore, Chad Henne, Rex Grossman.

Teams replaced those guys because they SUCKED, not because they're trying to go younger and cheaper.

And what about Alex Smith? What about Carson Palmer? Those teams didn't take a chance on a younger cheaper quarterback and went after aging veterans.
going by the logic of this article, the Broncos should have stuck with TT and not brought in that old fart who costs too much money. OK, maybe that's extreme but still...
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 02:30 PM   #15
kappys
Ring of Famer
 
kappys's Avatar
 
“It will be of little avail to the

Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,226
Default

Foolish article - the problem is there is a big difference between the QB you want for your franchise(young, big upside, talent) compared to the guy you would want for a single game. Granted Phylis had an awful year but I the O-line was so bad that only a handful of QB's could really have performed.

I think for a single game with all other things being equal on the two teams I would clearly choose the following over Rivers: Peyton, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Big Ben, Joe Flacco. With regards to Cutler, Romo, Eli, Kaep, Luck, RG3, Wilson I think its a little closer argument though admittedly based on recent production(including 1 year of production from the rooks) very reasonable to argue for these guys over Rivers. I would have a hard time choosing Cam for a single game over Rivers.

Rivers is still good but perspective on QB's is skewed by the amazing draft class last year, something we're not likely to see again for quite some time.
kappys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:06 PM   #16
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltaneer View Post
And every example he used in that article FAILED to make this point...
Sigh... There are no "examples". What he's suggesting is going to happen hasn't happened yet. He's saying the success and cheap contracts of these young QB's is going to potentially impact the "middle class" QB's when they become FA's. Read the last paragraph of the article. I'll post it for you below. Read it slowly and carefully. Don't move on to the next sentence until you fully understand the one you just read.

Quote:
It's unlikely that we'll see quarterback crops emerge every year to the extent that the Gang of Four did this past season, but this issue isn't going away. Young quarterbacks on rookie contracts are going to remain an enormous bargain for the foreseeable future. That's going to create a lot of upheaval in the middle class over the next several years. Right now, it's Rivers, Vick, and the likes of Josh Freeman or Jay Cutler. Within two years, it could be Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, and Matt Schaub, with Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan not far behind. In the past, teams would have held on to those quarterbacks for as long as possible; now, the financial burden of paying them and the possible savings to be realized with a young quarterback might very well make those teams more likely to move on from their established passer. And that could create more player movement, with useful quarterbacks hitting unrestricted free agency far more frequently than they have in the past, but getting shorter deals and way less money in the process. We'll eventually come to a financial equilibrium that makes sense for everyone involved. Right now, though, the financial disparity is simply too large to avoid noticing. The Gang of Four — and the rookies who follow them into the NFL — are the league's most valuable assets.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:07 PM   #17
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
I'm calling this article out for it being flawed in it's analysis...
Everything you babbled in this post has nothing to do with this article.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:08 PM   #18
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
going by the logic of this article, the Broncos should have stuck with TT and not brought in that old fart who costs too much money. OK, maybe that's extreme but still...
Not only is it "extreme" but it's completely incorrect. That isn't the logic of this article even a little bit. PM isn't remotely a "middle class" QB.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:55 PM   #19
rbackfactory80
Ring of Famer
 
rbackfactory80's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 4,547
Default

So let me get this straight Tony-- new up and coming players make older 10 year vets less valuable. Tell me more...
rbackfactory80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 05:08 PM   #20
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbackfactory80 View Post
So let me get this straight Tony-- new up and coming players make older 10 year vets less valuable. Tell me more...
I've got a hunch it's well beyond your intellectual capacity to understand...
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 05:10 PM   #21
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappys View Post
Foolish article...
Foolish because you disagree with the premise, or because you don't understand the premise? Your post suggests the latter...
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 05:13 PM   #22
Agamemnon
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I'd trade Cutler for Rivers in a heartbeat. That example made me lol.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 05:21 PM   #23
rbackfactory80
Ring of Famer
 
rbackfactory80's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 4,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I've got a hunch it's well beyond your intellectual capacity to understand...
lol

Make another water is wet post. Better yet, steal some information from someone's blog because you probably have never had an original thought in your life.
rbackfactory80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 05:27 PM   #24
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,144

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Everything you babbled in this post has nothing to do with this article.
it's be nice if you could think for yourself but oh well.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 06:06 PM   #25
MagicHef
Ring of Famer
 
MagicHef's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,334

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Schaub? Really?
MagicHef is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Denver Broncos