BearBroncos Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 LOL, before the Manning signing, Vegas has Denver at 75 to 1 Odds to win the Super bowl. Now they've moved up to 7 to 1 odds. Wow, dramatic transition to a team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I dont need to. "my" team in the packers thought ahead, drafted accordingly, and prudently bought insurance by having capable backup Qbs in case the starter gets hurt. Ask the Bears how much they would have liked a capable backup last year to just play .500 ball until Cutler could return. if you dont have fire insurance, do you look like a genius if you dont have a fire in 13 years? Or do you look like a moran when you have a fire in the 14th year? The fire insurance example is lame because if you don't have it, you're the one idiot without it. What you guys are doing are pointing to the very small sample of teams (basically NE and GB) who actually had both a great QB and a good back-up and assuming that's the norm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The fire insurance example is lame because if you don't have it, you're the one idiot without it. What you guys are doing are pointing to the very small sample of teams (basically NE and GB) who actually had both a great QB and a good back-up and assuming that's the norm. Considering the success of those teams, doesnt that make a very strong case that it SHOULD be the norm? Good teams cover their bases. Heck, the Steelers had Leftwich and Charlie batch. Not world beaters, but guys that could very capably fill in for their starter in a pinch. How about Vince Young filling in for Mike Vick? Billy Volek for Chargers? John Kitna for the Cowboys? heck, the Texans went 3 QBs deep last year. Now lets look at a team that doesnt have a strong running game, and everything hinges on that QB position with massive pressure. Is it a good idea or bad idea to have a capable backup that can either a.) win games in case of injury or b.) be groomed as a future starter in a succession plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Jeez det, just look at how quickly backup Qbs have been signed by teams in need of them this year! They have flown off the market very quickly. Perhaps more teams ARE trying to be like the Packers and new England and try to have capable backups . . . of course it is magnified by the importance of the QB position to the Manning-Colts and the complete lack of a plan for years . . . ., but hindsight is always 20/20 . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Like I said, it's the price you pay for trying to win the whole thing now. If you've got Manning, you worry about everything else. You worry about replacing him when the time comes. I'd take the Packers and Patriots model over the Colts. All three teams have had long term franchise guys who were the best in the game at one time or another in their careers. GB drafted 11 QBs (none with a pick higher than a 4th rounder before Rodgers in 2005 when Favre was furning 36) in the 20 seasons since acquiring Favre, developed 5 of them into starter-quality QBs, almost always had a quality backup, turned 4 of those QBs into higher returns with draft picks after trading them or letting them go FA in the case of Flynn, and now has possibly the best QB in the NFL with Rodgers, who has returned a Lombardi trophy for them. NE drafted Brady in 2000 to back up a very good starter in Drew Bledsoe, developed him enough that Brady went 11-3 as a starter in his sophomore year when Bledso got hurt, has won 3 SBs over Brady's tenure, and has drafted 6 QBs in Brady's 11 seasons, managing to go 11-5 after losing Brady for the year when Cassel stepped in, and then turned Cassel's 7th round pick into a 2nd rounder when they traded him. They used a 3rd rounder last season when Mallet dropped too far (sound familiar to GB picking Rodgers when he dropped too far?) as Brady enters next season as a 35 yr old, having time to develop Mallet as a starter to inherit the team as Brady's skills start slipping. IND on the other hand had no plan in regard to drafting or developing backup QBs, using only two 6th rounders in Manning's 14 years on guys who do not have the skills or ability to start in the NFL. Manning goes down and IND has a 2-14 season and now walks into the 2012 season with a whole bunch of holes and a rookie QB who doesn't have much support around him on O. Which model do you think is the better model? GB's and NE's, which net draft gains in trades while they develop lower round QBs and allow them to transition smoothly as their franchise guy gets hurt or ages, or IND that doesn't give a damn about backup QBs and has essentially nothing when the franchise guy is gone? Edited March 20, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The fire insurance example is lame because if you don't have it, you're the one idiot without it. What you guys are doing are pointing to the very small sample of teams (basically NE and GB) who actually had both a great QB and a good back-up and assuming that's the norm. and even then, the "success" is qualified. NE went without brady one year. cassel performed reasonably well, certainly better than anyone expected. the team won 11 games but missed the playoffs. then cassel went to another team. they got a second round pick out of him and mike vrabel. so good for the pats, they paid squat for a guy who had never started even a college game, turned him into a pretty good QB, got a surprisingly good season out of him and packaged him up and sloughed him off for a 2nd round draft pick. a clear success, but not exactly the kind that makes or breaks the fortunes of your franchise long term. now the packers. they got good value with a late first rounder, who then sat on the bench for 3 seasons. then of course, they sent off the franchise legend, rodgers came in his first year and went 6-10. the next year they were better, but they still lost twice to the old guy, who took the team's most hated rival deep into the playoffs. then the next year, 6 years after he was drafted, he takes them to the super bowl and becomes one of the top QBs in the game. certainly a success, but it took some time and some bad blood to get there. and I would say, the success came because rodgers became a great QB, not because the packers handled the situation brilliantly. if rodgers didn't pan out the way he has, they actually would have looked like total clowns in hindsight. now contrast that with indy. as det pointed out, they didn't miss a beat for 13 years. then they lose their franchise guy to injury and they suck so bad they get the top pick and a shot at the best QB prospect in a decade. obviously the final verdict won't come for a long time, but the whole thing may work out incredibly well for them. if so, it's more luck (pun intended) than anything else, but it could end up being the cleanest, shortest transition from one franchise QB to the next since montana to young. would they really be in better shape as a franchise if painter played as well as matt cassel did in 2008? I don't think so. but who knows. the bottom line IMO is that there is no predictably effective way to recover from losing your elite franchise QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papajohn Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The problem I have with the whole Colts situation is that they were THAT bad without Manning. I think it tells us that something was/is completely wrong in the Colts organisation. They were so bad that people were sure they would go 0-16. If this was the result of some kind of Manning power trip and him basically been both OC, HC and GM at the same time, then the organisation as a whole failed. No matter how big of a star he was, you just can't let that happen. On a personal note The Colts have always looked somewhat incompetent to me, and I am still surprised that they never had more succes. I often wonder what Manning could have done in another franchise, but we might get that answer now, so that's exciting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I think the thing we saw from the Colts last year (being so bad) is a reflection of how important Manning was to the offense. More than any other QB in the game, without him the offense could not do anything near the level they could with him. Not because the backups were that bad, but because there wasn't a backup capable of bringing what he does to the game. Calling plays, audibles, setting the guys in the right spot, and then finding that tiny whole and exploiting it. Was Matt Cassell anything close to Tom Brady? (After a few years in KC I think we have our answer.) But the Pats were not horrible when he took over for Brady. I really don't think it was because of some power trip by Manning, paying him too much money, or the organization being poorly run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I don't buy the "Manning is so good that he can't be replaced by a mortal without the team falling apart" bs. The Colts would have been much better with a capable backup like Shaun Hill. 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.