Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: Rambo89 on December 27, 2022, 04:39:31 PMQuestion for you AP that I asked someone else and got the run around.  How do you explain a QB like Kirk Cousins who put up the season he did in 2015 in his first full season in Washington without a 1,000 yard receiver on the squad?

Sure his number have gone up in Minnesota with Diggs and now Jefferson but he was a productive passer even before he had elite weapons.

An anomaly? I am curious why you didn't cite the year when he had 2 1,000 yard receivers and another with near 900?

Quote from: Jclayton92 on December 27, 2022, 04:18:30 PMIsn't that Jones though? An average QB In a run first offense. That sums him up perfectly as Tannehill is the Jones ceiling comp for most fans and pundits alike.

He never had a WR like AJ brown. And I would argue a RB as good as Henry.

Quote from: TrueBlueFan on December 27, 2022, 03:49:11 PMOk, yes it works both ways, but you continue to say that. How would you explain Mahomes, Tannehill, Burrow, etc are all still playing equally well or better when playing without their top, elite, #1 WRs? Why aren't their numbers plummeting?

Why is a guy like Carr, despite getting Davante Adams, not playing much better? Getting a #1 WR is supposed to take you over the top as you have implied.

It seems that having these elite weapons is not as impactful as you make it out to be, seeing as some have worked out, where others have not, seems to be a pretty even mix of the two.

In reference to some of the examples you gave Rodgers has won 5 straight with Watsons lightbulb turning on a bit. They've entered the wildcard discussion. Also, how is Hopkins and the AZ doing without Murray? Herbert, despite missing Allen for half the season, and Williams for a few games, still posted a winning record of 5-4, close to .500, but still above it, and they will be playing in the playoffs thanks to it.

I will give you Allen and to a lesser extent Tua, they did play a lot better with the #1s added. Tua has still been wildly inconsistent, but better nonetheless. I view him as the same tier as Jones.

Quote from: TrueBlueFan on December 27, 2022, 03:49:11 PMOk, yes it works both ways, but you continue to say that. How would you explain Mahomes, Tannehill, Burrow, etc are all still playing equally well or better when playing without their top, elite, #1 WRs? Why aren't their numbers plummeting?

Why is a guy like Carr, despite getting Davante Adams, not playing much better? Getting a #1 WR is supposed to take you over the top as you have implied.

It seems that having these elite weapons is not as impactful as you make it out to be, seeing as some have worked out, where others have not, seems to be a pretty even mix of the two.

In reference to some of the examples you gave Rodgers has won 5 straight with Watsons lightbulb turning on a bit. They've entered the wildcard discussion. Also, how is Hopkins and the AZ doing without Murray? Herbert, despite missing Allen for half the season, and Williams for a few games, still posted a winning record of 5-4, close to .500, but still above it, and they will be playing in the playoffs thanks to it.

I will give you Allen and to a lesser extent Tua, they did play a lot better with the #1s added. Tua has still been wildly inconsistent, but better nonetheless. I view him as the same tier as Jones.

Mahomes is gonna go down as one of the greatest ever. There's nothing wrong with saying he makes others around him better.

Tannehill is and always been an average QB who plays in a run first system.

Burrow had 8 TDs and 3 INTs without Chase in 4 games. Very small sample size. In those 4 games - he had a monster game (against Pitt with 4 TDs)- the other 3 were average games for him.

If you want to see what Hopkins meant for Murray - go check out what Arizona did with and without him last year. This year was a wasted year with Murray being banged up and Hopkins missing the first 6 games.

Quote from: Fletch on December 27, 2022, 03:23:36 PM^

Game. Set. Match.

That's not to say that I don't think d jones could be effective laying on the dolphins and 49ers. He very well could and needs a team like that.

But for him to be here given the holes in the roster and not on a rookie deal makes no sense .

You said Jones sucks on another thread. No walking back now...

Quote from: Jclayton92 on December 27, 2022, 03:38:41 PMGame, set, match:An expression indicating finality, announcing that a series of events—usually involving some form of rivalry—has reached a conclusion.

So in the interest of this discussion we should attach the word irrelevant as well.

Quote from: kingm56 on December 27, 2022, 03:25:48 PMTannehill lost AJ Brown and his numbers are the exact same; Chase was out for over a month and Burrow continued to put up top 5 numbers. I could go on-and-on...

Allen took a giant leap when he got Diggs.
Murray's best games were with Hopkins.
Tua is much better with Hill.
Herbert's numbers took a major dip without Allen and Williams.
How's Aaron Rodgers doing without Adams?

Again... works both ways.

Quote from: Fletch on December 27, 2022, 03:23:36 PM^

Game. Set. Match.

What does this even mean?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 27, 2022, 02:26:15 PM
I disagree that their receivers are "light years better" than the Giants'. That seems wildly hyperbolic to me.

Additionally, I think it's interesting that the Chiefs lost Tyreek Hill, a top three or four receiver in the sport, and yet Mahomes' season is significantly better this year than last year. There is a material margin for him in passer rating, QBR, and PFF this year versus last year.

If QB performance is so directly correlated to the receivers and no QB is capable of being so good that he can transcend that, how do you explain this?

How do you explain hill having more catches and yards without Mahomes then?

It works both ways.

Quote from: TrueBlueFan on December 27, 2022, 01:59:57 PMNick Foles beat Tom Brady in a Super Bowl. He isn't special, very inconsistent, hasn't had a "good year" since 2013, but that is no minor feat and should not be overlooked.

Also I did CTRL + F for Foles in the last 5 pages, and I do not see any mentions of him in this thread? Also not sure what blaming people here for what someone on another forum said is supposed to accomplish?

If you didn't say it - then don't worry about it. The poster knows who he is.

It's sad people stuck up for Nick Foles more than people they root for.

Does anyone else find "this backup QB" can be just as good as Jones based off one meaningless game against a bad team.

I mean there is a poster who is posting on this thread who has spoke many times on this board and another board about how much better Nick Foles is than Daniel Jones. I mean - come on people - let's do better.

Now we are all over Baker Mayfield - who's on his third team this year and the team that cut him mid season is much much better without him.

Game thread was an abomination.

I'd love to hear how that 2 point conversion was high? Lol

The shine is going to come off Tua sooner rather than later. Lack of arm strength and lack of mobility and injuries are going to catch up to him soon.

If you want to argue that Jones isn't the long term answer - that's fine.

But to say we have a WR group that could produce above average result for any QB is just remarkable to me. They are a very bad unit.

Are we really gonna say the Giants don't have one of the worst WR corps in the NFL? I mean can we at least be objective?

If you want to argue Ravens - fine but they have andrews at least. There's really not a group other than them that are as bad as ours.