Rule of thumb for backups is you want them to be able to go 2-2 if forced into action. The reason it's only 4 games is if they have to play more your season is over anyway so it doesn't matter who you have
For this ****ty team I agree but I do seem to recall a guy named nick Foles last.season that won the superbowl.
Maybe we should put Brock’s sample size of numbers up against other backups and see where they stack up.
Sure, and name the last five before Foles. The problem is, the next one up is likely the Dolphins '72 season. Backups just don't carry teams into the playoffs very often.
Tom Brady in 2001 was a backup and won the SB. Also, Kurt Warner in 1999 was a backup and won the SB. Otherwise, you have Trent Dilfer in 2000, Jeff Hostetler in 1990, Doug Williams in 1987, Jim Plunkett in 1980, Roger Staubach in 1971, and also Earl Morrall with the Colts in 1970 (played in the SB, as opposed to helping the '72 get to the SB but didn't play in it). So that's 9 backups (with Foles) that played in and won the SB out of 52 total, or 17.3% of SB's were won by backups.
How many backups had to play a majority of season games for their team and didn't even make the playoffs?
Yeah, I'm sure. Lol. I just think that's a better way of looking at it. I don't really care all that much about how often the exception to the rule happens, as that just causes people to hope when they shouldn't. I'd rather see how often teams with backups seeing significant playing time aren't successful. That's a better gage of what to expect.
Sure, but just think about your list- - Brady has started 17 seasons since that point - Warner started several seasons w/ other teams - Dilfer bounced back and forth between starting and reserve - Williams started basically that whole year (I was a Skins fan at the time in like 5th grade....woot woot!) While these guys may have qualified as "backups", they certainly weren't backup QB material....they were starters waiting to get the nod. Heck, Williams had the best first half of Super Bowl football ever with a showing that will probably never be eclipsed; definitely not the norm. Plunkett and Staubach were before my time as a fan so I can't comment there. My point is that it's a rarity for the 2nd option at QB to lead you through a significant part of the season and do well in the playoffs UNLESS it's a young up and comer like Brady. That's basically my argument for starting Fales as well- him being unproven is equally a good and a bad thing since defenses can't fully prepare for him or know his full capabilities. We know what we have with Oz and he's pretty good, but definitely not good enough for this particular offense with the 30-something day one players we have remaining.
What should our offense look like when missing 3 starting oline, three starting receivers, and a starting QB? WTF do people want him to do?
Admittedly, he was excellent in the SB but after taking over from Wentz, he had several games where he was bailed out by his teammates due to poor play. Cbrad has pointed out a few instances but it isn't that common where the backup has to play more than a few games and continue to play at a 1st team level, particularly not when you have less than half of your starters on O playing. I will say that I want to see Fales now though
Yeah that's realistic. Point to the exception not the rule. Let's see the new Miami wish list....a QB on par with Rodgers and Brees even though colleges have only produced one such QB in the last decade (Mahomes) and a backup good enough to win the Superbowl in case he gets hurt. Why stop there. Why not demand that our GM field a team of 22 hall of famers and every backup should be all pro caliber and while were at it we Might as well change the dolphin emblem to that of a unicorn.
Well obviously a good coach would have at least starter quality players as backups. It's the easiest way to tell which coaches are good coaches.
I like O'Leary a lot! Omar happened to interview Fales a few days ago with random questions, and one of them was "Who would you want with you on the team in a bar fight." He thought for a few seconds and said, "O'Leary, definitely O'Leary. You can't bet against that guy."
I'm of the belief that you should always draft a QB no matter what your situation. At worst, you've got camp-fodder, or you have a backup to the backup, since most guys you can groom in your system (if your current situation is good); and best case scenario you find a diamond in the rough to build your offense around.
I've been searching the forum post history for that time you pointed this out during the 10-6 Playoff year. I can't seem to find anything. Weird. You might have forgotten to note two things: 1). Todd Bowles, and 2). Film. There's really no film to go by when the Bills install a new QB middle of the week; it's sort of a wildcard effect in that sense. You may recall that Osweiler looked pretty good in his first game in too. It's funny how that works.
No. It could be we think your analysis is neither complete nor accurate. I just think you're looking for an easy target to hang the blame on. And universally, though not always, that is always the head coach. The "trainwreck" has been around a lot longer and is an owner favorite.
Bingo. He's admitted he has no idea what he's even watching. He knows nothing about scheme, evaluation, formations, etc etc. He said that himself. So, when a person really doesn't know what's going on they pick out the easiest thing to criticize.
Oh, I may know a tad more than I let on...but the fact is the Fins Suck. You and Rev Rick can go play bingo if you want, but it won't change the Fins one bit. they'll still suck and you'll still make excuses for them!! Lol!
No, that is not making excuses. That is pointing out where we think the real problem is situated. And you can continue the ad nauseum rotating head coach 'resolution' to the Phins problem and achieve next to nothing in the way of a change, or one can look deeper into the organization and examine the one constant for a number of head coach terms. There are some people, and have been others in the past, who were, and are not qualified to run a Motel Six in the Gut of Naples, Italy when the fleet is in!
Like Rev wrote, no excuses. The 'Phins are obviously not very good. However, you don't cut a person's leg off when they have pneumonia. Only an ignoramus would think doing such a thing would fix the problem. *Edit: And just to be clear, Gase may be a horrible coach. And everything you write about the team may be 100% true. However, I doubt it. And until you can show something other than results based arguments I'll stick with my opinions. And that's the problem here. If someone like Key or Rev or Fin-O or Resnor etc etc gives an opinion they typically follow that up with a well thought out reason. We all disagree on a lot of things, but typically we take the time to actually think about the problem rather than just jumping to conclusions.
That was a great read and honestly, it's 100% true. Carroo is the highest receiver healthy on the depth chart...a practice squad player. We have one starting lineman from week one still standing, plus our starting running back duo. That makes 9 backups on our starting offense and we're a .500 football team still in a tight playoff race. I don't see how anyone can look at that and think, "Fire the coach!"
He helped put this roster together man. It's hard to absolve him completely, not to mention the continued struggles of putting together a consistent/cohesive O-line.
LOL...In other words, I'm right and you know it...but I don't offer my opinions in ways you find amenable. Gase is horrible and the Fins suck..You, the RevpRick, Keyfin can all hate it. You can all take issue with me (which is hysterical)...but they still suck. It is what it is.