David Carr?

[Packnut]

Curse

[quote="pbmax"]Packnut, I was exaggerating a complaint I saw a scout state about both Smith and Leak. I don't buy it, or the Tedford curse, I was just trying to tweak the argument that you would make a personnel decision, after acquiring the player, based on a "curse".

I agree that "curse" is the wrong word to use. I'm also not so sure about the "QB friendly system" either. I think most college coaches simplify and run a system according to the QB strengths. Getting a read on college QB's and how they will do in the pro's is a crapshoot at best. I believe the problem has a lot to do with big name programs having a ton of talent surrounding the QB which makes it harder to gauge him.

I think that's why there are so many late rd QB's who have great Pro careers and those early rd guys who fail. It's easy to be good behind a great O line and a good run game. I think that's why a guy like Cutler is a sure thing to do good. He did'nt have talent around him, yet he produced.

I guess this years draft is a good example of my "theory". Both Russell and Quinn had talent around them. Both had very good WR's and adequate O lines and run games. I'm not as high on them as others. Now take a guy like Stanton from MS. He put up big time numbers with little talent on the offensive side.

[Merlin]

Most college QBs struggle in the pros. If you were to argue that Tedford's success in passing in college causes his QBs to be overrated, I could understand that argument.

But nothing you mention (coaching to WIN college games, less complicated, more QB friendly offense, different mechanics) is unique to Tedford. You could lay these accusations accurately at any college coordinator who emphasizes the pass.

Most college QBs fail. Many first round QBs fail. Blaming Tedford is mistaking correlation for cause.

I mentioned the Meyer QB complaint earlier. Spurrier QBs have also had similar trouble. Including where the ball was held.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a QB from one of these systems. If you evaluate the physical aspects correctly, its no different than selecting any other QB.

="Merlin"]Although I don't believe in a "curse", the statistics for Tedford QB's don't lie. He runs a very quarterback friendly offense, one that is designed to be easy on the quarterback both in complexity and terminology. He also teaches each of them the same mechanics. Remember that he is teaching college quarterbacks to play the college game to win. He isn't interested in winning NFL games because he doesn't coach at that level. It is a well known FACT that his quarterbacks don't translate into good NFL quarterbacks.

I agree that most first round QB's are a bust. But its still a fact that Tedford QB's don't do well in the NFL. We aren't talking about Florida State or the Old Ball Coach here because Rodgers isn't one of those. I believe it has everything to do with the College Offense and the player then anything else but you can't ignore history either. I wouldn't ignore history in the case of Florida State and the Old Ball Coach. Those teams have a lot of talent surrounding the QB and in a lot of cases make him look pretty good.

Rodgers hasn't shown anything in two years. You would think he would have shown something in that time frame if he's "got it". Trent Dilfer is a good example of a Tedford QB that I thought "had it". When he first appeared in a game for Tampa Bay, I thought he was the real deal. He took control of the offense and played hard. He ended up being average and more of a game manager. When I see our heir-apparent skipping balls to wide open receivers when he's not under pressure, that scares the crap out of me.

[Merlin]

Packnut, I disagree with your assessment of Quinn. I think he had a great running back and good receivers, but the offensive line for Notre Dame sucked this past season. Quinn was running for his life more times then not I think he will be a good NFL QB because of the style of offense that they run and his on field presence. He has a great arm and he reads defense well (although college defenses). I see him as a Tom Brady type game manager. Someone who will put up average numbers with few mistakes.

Andre Woodson from Kentucky is a guy that I think will be a great NFL QB. If I had to pick one College QB to play for the Packers today, it would be him.

[Packnut]

Quinn

Packnut, I disagree with your assessment of Quinn. I think he had a great running back and good receivers, but the offensive line for Notre Dame sucked this past season. Quinn was running for his life more times then not I think he will be a good NFL QB because of the style of offense that they run and his on field presence. He has a great arm and he reads defense well (although college defenses). I see him as a Tom Brady type game manager. Someone who will put up average numbers with few mistakes.

Andre Woodson from Kentucky is a guy that I think will be a great NFL QB. If I had to pick one College QB to play for the Packers today, it would be him.

I'll give you the O line, but Brady had solid WR's and a very good TE, not to mention one of the better offensive minds in the game today coaching him. I'll say I'd take him over Russell. I'm not saying he won't make a good pro, just saying it's easier to evaluate a guy who produces with little help around him.

[Merlin]

That's why I like Andre Woodson from Kentucky. I think in Quinn's case, the coaching he has had will accelerate his learning curve in the NFL and I would argue that starting NFL players are better then the starting players for Notre Dame (WR, TE, RB). SO, he will have the talent around him. The only problem I see for him is if he goes to say, Oakland where there is no coaching or some team that has a poor coaching staff.

[vince]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.

We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,

Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.

And you came out with this gem,

I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.

When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.

[Packnut]

Woodson

That's why I like Andre Woodson from Kentucky. I think in Quinn's case, the coaching he has had will accelerate his learning curve in the NFL and I would argue that starting NFL players are better then the starting players for Notre Dame (WR, TE, RB). SO, he will have the talent around him. The only problem I see for him is if he goes to say, Oakland where there is no coaching or some team that has a poor coaching staff.

I agree about Woodson. I only saw him a couple of times when I had bets down in Kentucky games, but I liked what I saw.

[Merlin]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.

We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,

Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.

And you came out with this gem,

I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.

When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.

Wtfever you say man. Take whatever bits and pieces out of the context of the conversation to justify your childish remarks. You argue a point with an article that slams your point into submission by only taking what you like out of it. Why am I not surprised you are trying to justify your behavior the same way? I don't really care man, you lost all creditability with me because you fail to read and comprehend what is said. Again, don't let reality interfere with your logic....

NEXT!

[Zool]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.

We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,

Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.

And you came out with this gem,

I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.

When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.

Wtfever you say man. Take whatever bits and pieces out of the context of the conversation to justify your childish remarks. You argue a point with an article that slams your point into submission by only taking what you like out of it. Why am I not surprised you are trying to justify your behavior the same way? I don't really care man, you lost all creditability with me because you fail to read and comprehend what is said. Again, don't let reality interfere with your logic....

NEXT!

My, what a healthy self image you have.

[Packnut]

Time

Merlin- take my advice. It's not worth the time and aggravation my friend. I've learned to just skip what 2 or 3 here have to say and it makes for a much more enjoyable day. Hell, I'm sure some feel the same way about me!!!!!!!!!!

[Guiness]

Back to Tedford QB's. I'm curious about the converse - has any QB that was under his tutelage ever done at least reasonably well? I'd qualify 'reasonably well' as meaning he started for a team for at least a few years. Their lack of success is always talked about. What about their successes (if any).

edit: just checked, and Dilfer was TB's starter for four years - including that one very good season he (21TD, 11INT).

[MJZiggy]

Re: Time

Merlin- take my advice. It's not worth the time and aggravation my friend. I've learned to just skip what 2 or 3 here have to say and it makes for a much more enjoyable day. Hell, I'm sure some feel the same way about me!!!!!!!!!!

What? I didn't read what you said...

[Merlin]

Back to Tedford QB's. I'm curious about the converse - has any QB that was under his tutelage ever done at least reasonably well? I'd qualify 'reasonably well' as meaning he started for a team for at least a few years. Their lack of success is always talked about. What about their successes (if any).

edit: just checked, and Dilfer was TB's starter for four years - including that one very good season he (21TD, 11INT).

Dilfer is about the most successful Tedford QB, which isn't saying much since most consider his career average at best. David Carr (the person the thread is about) has been the Texans only starting QB and is a Tedford QB.

[Partial]

No generic comment from McCarthy there, nope none at all. What do you expect him to say? He sucks and I want someone else? In fact, when was the last time you heard any coach from any organization tell the media, "yeah he sucks" about any player on the roster? Even Ryan Leaf got the benefit of the doubt.

We can agree or disagree about whether McCarthy could easily have (or would likely have) stopped short of saying what he said if he didn't think Rodgers can be a successful QB in this league. That is a debatable issue, but you can't legitimately (unless you're Mike McCarthy) state your opinion as "fact" as you attempt to do. That's what I'm taking exception with.

You originally said,

TT is the only one in the organization that thinks Rodgers has a chance to be anything. I am willing to bet that if all things were equal, Martin would beat out Rodgers. I just don't see TT letting McCarthy go with his gut on this one.

Then you said,

Just because you don't like something (or reality for that matter) doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it isn't factual.

And you came out with this gem,

I know it's hard for people to analyze things to the extent that I do. That isn't a cut on you or anyone else, that's just how it is.

When you say that those who don't see things the same way you do either just don't see "reality," don't "get it", and/or aren't as analytical or intelligent as you, that is not only wrong, it's offensive to all the great posters on this board. I believe those facts justify my stated opinion of those responses.

I also believe you're wrong about your position that 1. TT is the only one in the Packer organization who believes Rodgers can play in this league, and 2. TT is dictating the depth chart to the coaching staff. I also disagree with you about th various individuals' respective roles in the draft process, which Patler and Harvey have posted about already, so I won't repeat what they have already stated, other than to say that I agree with their posts.

Wtfever you say man. Take whatever bits and pieces out of the context of the conversation to justify your childish remarks. You argue a point with an article that slams your point into submission by only taking what you like out of it. Why am I not surprised you are trying to justify your behavior the same way? I don't really care man, you lost all creditability with me because you fail to read and comprehend what is said. Again, don't let reality interfere with your logic....

NEXT!

I nominate Merlin as Ass Hat Rat. MTP can you hook that up?

[motife]

Peter King on David Carr's release :

"I think maybe we should have seen the Carr firing coming. Those close to Gary Kubiak say Carr did not progress much from the mechanical, non-instinctive player the coach inherited 14 months ago when he got the Texans' job.

Last summer, on a visit to Texans' training camp, I saw Kubiak micromanaging Carr. I thought it was wise at the time to throw so much into trying to save the quarterback's career in Houston. Looking back, you can see how much work Kubiak had to do, and why, in the end, it was too much to overcome. I wrote:

The other day, Carr threw a pass into a coverage scheme that he, and Kubiak, knew right away was the wrong pass at the wrong time. Terrible decision. And instead of soft-pedaling his criticism, which is the way Carr has been treated for four years as the Disappointing Golden Boy of Houston football, Kubiak offered this gem: "You've been in the league four years and you make that throw? There is no way you can make a throw into coverage like that!''

You've got to love a coach who does not come in and kiss the franchise quarterback's rear end. Because smooching is not what this quarterback needed. "David can't assume, 'I'm OK, we've just got to fix the stuff around me,' '' Kubiak told me after a Texans practice, sounding Parcellsian. "He's not OK. He's a long way from being OK. We all are.''

With Kubiak and offensive coordinator Troy Calhoun micromanaging his every move, there's no doubt in my mind Carr's going to be a better player this year. Will he be a franchise quarterback? I don't know. No one does. I have my doubts. He's got to do it under pressure. But he's going to have a chance, even though I think the Texans should have taken Reggie Bush instead of Mario Williams with the first pick in the draft because Carr needs another offensive weapon desperately.

Last Thursday, the day I watched Carr running Houston's talent-shy first-team offense, Kubiak was standing deep downfield, eyeing Carr's mechanics closely. Every so often, he'd see something, amble up and say something to Carr, then go back and resume watching him from afar. It's so fascinating why Kubiak was doing this.

Last winter, when Kubiak sat down to study every game Carr played last year, he noticed something fatal to quarterbacking success. He noticed when Carr faded back to throw, he consistently looked to the side of the field that was his first option. Imagine how crucial this is. If you're a safety, and you've scouted Carr from the end-zone coaches tape that every team sees, and you've seen that you can figure out the side of the field he's trying to throw to the second he begins his pass-drop, wouldn't that be a huge advantage?

When Kubiak first sat down with Carr to watch tape, he said, in so many words: Are you kidding me? You're an NFL quarterback, and you telegraph your throws so blatantly? So on this day, in this practice, Kubiak watched Carr take his drop and watched his eyes as much as his arm. He watched to make sure Carr was surveying the entire field on his drop, not just half of it."