My vote for the most overrated player in the entire NFL would be Matthew Stafford.

I understand that he puts a big numbers every year so the fantasy people love him. However, when I watch the Lions play, I see a poor man's Jay Cutler. He has a big arm but he consistently makes terrible decisions and I'm not sure that he is all that competitive.

He's probably still a top 15 quarterback in the NFL but only barely so.

A good comp for you fellow old-timers out there would be former Baltimore Colts quarterback Burt Jones. Great arm, excellent mobility – little else.

(09-27-2015 10:47 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  when I watch the Lions play, I see a poor man's Jay Cutler. He has a big arm but he consistently makes terrible decisions and I'm not sure that he is all that competitive.

That doesn't sound like a poor man's Jay Cutler, that just sounds like a description of Jay Cutler.

It is criminal that Calvin Johnson has gone through his entire college and pro careers without a good QB.

This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

Currently or of all time? Currently I would say Colin Kaperick but of all time it has to be Brett Favre. Favre is absolutely one of the worst quarterbacks of all time, if he gets into the HOF on the first ballot I think it would be great disservice to football.

(09-28-2015 12:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

The problem is that NFL teams who used QBs the way they are used in college would need 4 or 5 of them to get through 16 games. If you could find a way to have enough depth and have them be interchangeable, I do think you could move the ball that way.

(09-28-2015 07:34 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

The problem is that NFL teams who used QBs the way they are used in college would need 4 or 5 of them to get through 16 games. If you could find a way to have enough depth and have them be interchangeable, I do think you could move the ball that way.

that's actually a novel idea. stock the roster with 4 or 5 running QB's.

part of the thing with the NFL is the rules. Plays like what Suggs did to Bradford in the preseason that is encouraged. You don't see that in the college game.

btw, I would say the most overrated player- Suh

(09-28-2015 08:00 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 07:34 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

The problem is that NFL teams who used QBs the way they are used in college would need 4 or 5 of them to get through 16 games. If you could find a way to have enough depth and have them be interchangeable, I do think you could move the ball that way.

that's actually a novel idea. stock the roster with 4 or 5 running QB's.

FWIW, the Bills are doing a lot of "college stuff" with Tyrod Taylor. Not many designed QB runs, but a lot of quick scrambles and extending plays.

Glassford, all arm no accuracy, touch, quick decision making, composure. Hated him since we've drafted him, haven't watched the Lions in 3 years because of him.

(09-28-2015 07:34 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

The problem is that NFL teams who used QBs the way they are used in college would need 4 or 5 of them to get through 16 games. If you could find a way to have enough depth and have them be interchangeable, I do think you could move the ball that way.

Yeah, I think that there simply is way too much speed on NFL defenses. I don't blame college coaches for maximizing their chances to win by going toward more spread offenses with running QBs, but it generally doesn't work in the NFL with how great defenses are. As a result, I also can't blame NFL coaches for generally vomiting all over what QBs "learned" in college. Just look at what the NFL has done to even the most freakishly-athletic QBs like Michael Vick and RGIII over the years. You need to be able to throw from the pocket in the NFL or you'll eventually get crushed out there (and even Vick had an insanely strong arm, but that still isn't as valuable as someone like prime Peyton Manning or Tom Brady with comparatively limited speed but the ability to throw from the pocket on a dime).

Now, NFL QBs do need to be able to *move* around or out of the pocket to gain an extra second of throwing time when they're feeling the rush. That's what Aaron Rodgers does so well (and Manning and Brady have also had great pocket presence even without great running speed). That is also exactly what Jay Cutler doesn't do well at all (as someone that has observed him every week as a massive Bears fan) despite being a pretty athletic runner on paper. Pocket presence means much more in the NFL than the ability to run in and of itself for a QB.

(09-28-2015 12:44 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Currently or of all time? Currently I would say Colin Kaperick but of all time it has to be Brett Favre. Favre is absolutely one of the worst quarterbacks of all time, if he gets into the HOF on the first ballot I think it would be great disservice to football.

Hmmm... Kaepernick isn't a bad choice. I'd actually go with his NFC West rival: Russell Wilson. I think Wilson is a good QB, but I don't think that he is a QB that can carry a franchise for years (which is how he is being paid and treated by the media) in the way that, say, Aaron Rodgers is doing with the Packers.

However, speaking of the Packers, you're completely off your rocker with Brett Favre. There's no team that I hate in sports more than the Packers, but Favre was *insanely* incredible in his prime and is about as big of a no-brainer first ballot immediate Hall of Famer as you can get in the NFL. Sure, his personality was nauseating and I hated hearing about Favre constantly near the end of his career when ESPN needed to spend several months of speculating about whether he'd retire or not for at least 5 years straight (if not more), but I can't take away his abilities on the field. IMHO, he was the most dominant player in the NFL in the 1990s.

yeah, totally disagree with Favre. He's the all time leader in games started as a QB, and #2 in playoff games started. only Tom Brady started more- and Peyton Manning should eclipse this year. Top 10 in most every passing category. No way in hell that he's one of the worst quarterbacks of all time.

(09-28-2015 07:34 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

The problem is that NFL teams who used QBs the way they are used in college would need 4 or 5 of them to get through 16 games. If you could find a way to have enough depth and have them be interchangeable, I do think you could move the ball that way.

The NFL has to figure out something if they want a pool of better QBs. Their strategy is so narrow-minded that they only want QBs built like Aaron Rodgers, but in the pool of QBs leaving college football with that body type, they get 100 guys like Stafford or Leinart for every one guy like Rodgers. Meanwhile they can't protect or figure out how to properly use QBs like RG3.

(09-28-2015 11:16 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 07:34 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

The problem is that NFL teams who used QBs the way they are used in college would need 4 or 5 of them to get through 16 games. If you could find a way to have enough depth and have them be interchangeable, I do think you could move the ball that way.

The NFL has to figure out something if they want a pool of better QBs. Their strategy is so narrow-minded that they only want QBs built like Aaron Rodgers, but in the pool of QBs leaving college football with that body type, they get 100 guys like Stafford or Leinart for every one guy like Rodgers. Meanwhile they can't protect or figure out how to properly use QBs like RG3.

yep. And the thing is colleges are getting spread QB guys from High Schools. it rolls downhill.

(09-28-2015 11:16 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 07:34 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

The problem is that NFL teams who used QBs the way they are used in college would need 4 or 5 of them to get through 16 games. If you could find a way to have enough depth and have them be interchangeable, I do think you could move the ball that way.

The NFL has to figure out something if they want a pool of better QBs. Their strategy is so narrow-minded that they only want QBs built like Aaron Rodgers, but in the pool of QBs leaving college football with that body type, they get 100 guys like Stafford or Leinart for every one guy like Rodgers. Meanwhile they can't protect or figure out how to properly use QBs like RG3.

I think most NFL teams would *love* to be able to plug in a Matt Leinart-type and be successful. If there was a way to do it, then it would have been done. The problem is that NFL defenses aren't static - they simply crush these types of QBs. NFL defensive lines and linebackers are too fast for even the best running QBs and NFL secondaries will pick off QBs that have anything less than pinpoint precision. You can scheme to fit your QB's strengths in college, but that's not going to be successful in the NFL (just as NBA teams couldn't scheme to make Adam Morrison into as good of an NBA player as a college player). There's no way for NFL teams to scheme around those items to prop up a lesser QB (outside of having a defense that allows so few points that you just need a pedestrian offense that doesn't turn the ball over, and even then, there are only a couple of examples of Super Bowl winners where that has worked). Once again, if super-freak athletes like Vick and RGIII eventually got broken down by NFL defenses, what hope do the lesser athletes have? You can't make NFL defenses less athletic (even though NFL rules makers have made almost every rule change in the last 30 years in favor of more offense), which is why you need QBs with specific attributes to beat those defenses.

FWIW, it's not as if though NFL QBs are getting worse. I think a lot of fans are having collective amnesia about the depth of quality NFL QBs in the past - there have always been only 6 or 7 elite QBs in the NFL in any given year during the Super Bowl era and pretty much everyone else was mediocre or interchangeable. In fact, the NFL was much more dynastic prior to the year 2000 and it was largely due to domination by only a handful of elite QBs. I don't think that the present day is any different. Even with all of the changes to the *college*game in the past 20 years, pre-spread Heisman winners like Gino Toretta, Danny Wuerffel and Chris Weinke show that great college QBs have had only a tangential correlation with NFL success for quite a long time.

(09-28-2015 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 11:16 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 07:34 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This is the NFL's fault, though. There are plenty of talented QBs in college. The NFL's problem is that their coaching staffs haven't yet learned to utilize that talent in the right way; the NFL coaches are all determined to make every guy fit the 1970s/1980s stereotype of an NFL QB.

And of course, the NFL always thinks its own doesn't stink, so they blame the players and they blame the college coaches for not delivering QBs that fit the NFL's ancient QB stereotype.

The problem is that NFL teams who used QBs the way they are used in college would need 4 or 5 of them to get through 16 games. If you could find a way to have enough depth and have them be interchangeable, I do think you could move the ball that way.

The NFL has to figure out something if they want a pool of better QBs. Their strategy is so narrow-minded that they only want QBs built like Aaron Rodgers, but in the pool of QBs leaving college football with that body type, they get 100 guys like Stafford or Leinart for every one guy like Rodgers. Meanwhile they can't protect or figure out how to properly use QBs like RG3.

I think most NFL teams would *love* to be able to plug in a Matt Leinart-type and be successful. If there was a way to do it, then it would have been done. The problem is that NFL defenses aren't static - they simply crush these types of QBs. NFL defensive lines and linebackers are too fast for even the best running QBs and NFL secondaries will pick off QBs that have anything less than pinpoint precision. You can scheme to fit your QB's strengths in college, but that's not going to be successful in the NFL (just as NBA teams couldn't scheme to make Adam Morrison into as good of an NBA player as a college player). There's no way for NFL teams to scheme around those items to prop up a lesser QB (outside of having a defense that allows so few points that you just need a pedestrian offense that doesn't turn the ball over, and even then, there are only a couple of examples of Super Bowl winners where that has worked). Once again, if super-freak athletes like Vick and RGIII eventually got broken down by NFL defenses, what hope do the lesser athletes have? You can't make NFL defenses less athletic (even though NFL rules makers have made almost every rule change in the last 30 years in favor of more offense), which is why you need QBs with specific attributes to beat those defenses.

FWIW, it's not as if though NFL QBs are getting worse. I think a lot of fans are having collective amnesia about the depth of quality NFL QBs in the past - there have always been only 6 or 7 elite QBs in the NFL in any given year during the Super Bowl era and pretty much everyone else was mediocre or interchangeable. In fact, the NFL was much more dynastic prior to the year 2000 and it was largely due to domination by only a handful of elite QBs. I don't think that the present day is any different. Even with all of the changes to the *college*game in the past 20 years, pre-spread Heisman winners like Gino Toretta, Danny Wuerffel and Chris Weinke show that great college QBs have had only a tangential correlation with NFL success for quite a long time.

I have a theory that the amnesia stems from the fact that since the NFL has morphed into a QB's league, the lack of elite QB's has become much more acute. The only way to win a Super Bowl now requires an elite quarterback or a quarterback that becomes scorching during a playoff run. The NFL has turned one dimensional, the reason I find college football more engaging and entertaining.

(09-27-2015 10:47 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  My vote for the most overrated player in the entire NFL would be Matthew Stafford.

I am about to contradict myself, I realize this, but here it goes. I don't find him overrated, because he mostly knows what he has, and what he can do. And he made his name by running what I call the Decepticon offnse, turning the defense into Optimus Prime, having them screaming "Megatron must be stopped: no matter the cost!!!" He simply found Calvin Johnson, and threw him the damn ball. Yeah it made him overrated, but he used his assets. The downside for him though, is age and attrition have turned Megatron from a Superstar, to a mere star. And you can't play that type of offense with a mere star. Kurt Warner did this in his waning days with Larry Fitzgerald, and to a lesser extent Anquan Boldin. He threw up a lot of jump balls, and let them win them. So yes I guess Stafford is overrated because his value was tied to Calvin Johnson, but on the flip side, I can't get mad at him for utilizing the weapons he had at his disposal.

(09-28-2015 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Once again, if super-freak athletes like Vick and RGIII eventually got broken down by NFL defenses, what hope do the lesser athletes have?

You make a good point. Because these are both guys who actually have rocket arms, and are faster than most everyone on the field. I think the problem is, it is hard to make a player like that with such supreme athletic ability, to force them as youngsters to develop into a true pocket passer, when whatever lever they are at, coaches want to win, and it is easier to win if they run when things break down. I think Russell Wilson is the closest we have had in a while of a supreme athlete, who has accuracy, touch, and a strong arm, but his size still limits what he can do in the pocket. Steve Young, Warren Moon, and Steve McNair are the best examples I can think of (since 1990) of elite athletes who also had the prototypical size, who truly developed into elite pocket passers. And none of them were the super athlete we are seeing today at QB. Although Randall Cunningham was pretty close in his later (starting) years.

(09-28-2015 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  FWIW, it's not as if though NFL QBs are getting worse. I think a lot of fans are having collective amnesia about the depth of quality NFL QBs in the past - there have always been only 6 or 7 elite QBs in the NFL in any given year during the Super Bowl era and pretty much everyone else was mediocre or interchangeable.

I don't know if it is amnesia, or that nostalgic memories can just vastly differ from contemporary feelings. Case in point, nowadays people point to players like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson as examples of how a smart quarterback can manage a team and win a Super Bowl, In reality, Dilfer's contract wasn't even renewed after he won a Super Bowl, and Johnson lost his starting job just over a season later.

Some interesting points made in this thread. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. Let's keep it going.