Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Samuel S" data-source="post: 129394349" data-attributes="member: 1754664">If you truly believe Clint was a top 10 QB, there is little reason to debate it. You are never going to get the point that no one intelligent thinks raw stats are the measure of performance. No disrespect to Clint because there is no shame at being average at this level. But, he was an average QB who happened to be the best we had and he played his *** off.&nbsp; You, do inadvertently make a salient point. It's sort of in the &quot;it's not a bug, it's a feature&quot; class of points. If we have a system we know requires multiple seasons before a QB can thrive and we simultaneously know that it is practically impossible to have a QB with multiple seasons under his belt at all times then the design is flawed because it guarantees down years. If that is true, then rather than just saying well, that's the way it is in this system, intelligent people would likely eventually conclude, &quot;well maybe we should look at other systems that don't have down years built in by design.&nbsp; When you add to that OBVIOUS issue the reality that not even all QBs with multiple seasons in the system will be adequate merely because of the passage of time, it would seem we are setting ourselves up to struggle more often than not.&nbsp; That seems like something reasonable people would perceive as a problem and being told it's part of of our coach's system seems to help identify the source of the problem rather than eliminate the problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Samuel S, post: 129394349, member: 1754664"] If you truly believe Clint was a top 10 QB, there is little reason to debate it. You are never going to get the point that no one intelligent thinks raw stats are the measure of performance. No disrespect to Clint because there is no shame at being average at this level. But, he was an average QB who happened to be the best we had and he played his *** off. You, do inadvertently make a salient point. It's sort of in the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" class of points. If we have a system we know requires multiple seasons before a QB can thrive and we simultaneously know that it is practically impossible to have a QB with multiple seasons under his belt at all times then the design is flawed because it guarantees down years. If that is true, then rather than just saying well, that's the way it is in this system, intelligent people would likely eventually conclude, "well maybe we should look at other systems that don't have down years built in by design. When you add to that OBVIOUS issue the reality that not even all QBs with multiple seasons in the system will be adequate merely because of the passage of time, it would seem we are setting ourselves up to struggle more often than not. That seems like something reasonable people would perceive as a problem and being told it's part of of our coach's system seems to help identify the source of the problem rather than eliminate the problem. [/QUOTE]

Name