Quote
JamesJM
although I get your point and see why you would say that.
For me it's more this: Average QB talent, shown talent, across all the teams and including a few years.. (no specific amount of years but I wouldn't really use 60's era football vs today).
And I mean QB's who are starters.
And in doing so there ARE, always, going to be QB's whom "you" would 'rank' as 2nd tier... in a way I wouldn't disagree, but for me there is never a year when that's not the case... and thus, they ARE starting caliber because there simply aren't enough top tier QB's to go around. I think that would hold true for every position.
Maybe semantics here.... somewhat, but I think, personal opinion, that it holds true that there are not 32 QB's better than Foles... even using 'caliber', whatever that might entail, as criteria. I can certainly name off 32 QB's in NFL history... one heck of a lot more than that would be my guess. But they ain't available today. - JamesJM
"Caliber" is a different judgment. A #2 caliber qb may start but that doesnt make him starting CALIBER. By starting caliber I mean you don't want to replace him and will build around him and think that he will be good enough to win with. That's opposed to a guy where it's well someone has to play qb but if we had the chance to upgrade the position we would.
The "are there enough qbs" argument is just different.
It's like wines. There are fine great wines, and there are 2nd rate wines (which are still better than bad wines). We may drink a lot of 2nd tier wine because we can only afford so much of the fine wines. But that doesn;t make the 2nd rate win we drink into fine wine.
That is, to combine your view and my view, there are not 32 starting caliber qbs in the NFL, so that some teams have to use (what I call) #2 caliber qbs as starters.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2018 02:32PM by zn.
