Take Hall of Fame QBs or take 1st overall pick QBs or take QBs taken in the top 5 of the draft. Now take Hall of Fame RBs or take 1st overall pick QBs or take RBs taken in the 1st pick. You can take superbowl victories, superbowl appearences, playoff record, or winning %, whatever team success criteria you freaken want. No matter what you take the best QBs prospects and NFL players record of team success is far superior than comparable running backs. You make an admirable job excusing away the role of Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, etc, but the record is 15 appearences and 12 superbowl victories among 1st picks on QBs to NONE and NONE for Rbs speak for itself--I am sorry but trends don't get much stronger than that. All the rationalization in the world can't erase a slam dunk record than that, it is like you are the cigarette lobby claiming there is no proof smoking cigarettes cause cancer based on other circumstantial evidence every time a smoker came down with cancer. OK, you think a RB is more important than a QB to a pro football team. Good luck finding many people who agree with you on this, but holding this position would defintely lead one to conclude Bush is the choice.
Personally, I can only guess, if you've seen me give a braintype of a QB it's because I read about it on their website or in the book I have, and since braintypes inc. are employed by some NFL teams they can't release their "professional" opinion on potential draftees until after the draft. Last year he did an interview with ESPN after the draft and was asked about the top quarterbacks drafted, Smith and Rogers, they were both ENTPs, that's the typical QB braintype, although not the best. If I was to guess I would say Young an ISTP, ISFP, ESTP, or ESFP, (can't exactly narrow it down, sorry) for comparisons sake, the most recent ISTP QBs are old guys already Brunnell and Brad Johnson, the most recent ISFP is Eli Manning, youngest ESTP is Vick, and McNabb is the only ESFP starter I believe. However, the 4 most ideal BTs for a QB from what I've seen in order are ESTP, ESFP, ENTJ, and ENFP Peyton Manning, McNabb, Vick, Favre, Carr, Brady, Breese, Plummer and Green are either one of those, most of the rest are ENTPs, a few are ISFPs, Palmer is the only ISFJ, and Bledsoe is the only ENFJ. The most relevant difference between all of them is the way they handle pressure, anyone of them could learn a playbook backwards and forwards, but when pressure is at it's highest some are able to use what they know and make the pass better than the others. For instance, most feelers are vulnerable to "choking" because pressure bothers them the most, they can forget a play completely when pressured, except the ESFP because even though they feel pressure too, they are very creative and want to make the big play. At the same time some thinkers can think too much when pressure hits, that's a problem with ISTPs, ENTPs too, but they have an additional problem of reacting to how a play is supposed to play out not how it just played out. ENFPs are one of my favs because even though they rarely succeed, they have such a cool personality that their teammates will bust their ass for him, that's Tom Brady. ENTJ is Carr's BT, and I just see too much Steve Young in him to give up, but at the same time there's some Rob Johnson in him too, all those dudes are ENTJs. ESTP has proven to be the best, that's Peyton Manning, Vick, and Plummer, ESTPs are typically the best because when pressure hits they stay cool, and they react to what's there quicker than all of the rest. McNabb is the only ESFP, I think ESFPs and ESTPs aren't given the QB position as much as they should because they don't take anything too seriously, coaches might take that as a lack of intelligence and care. Actually the only past ESFP QBs I can remember are Randall Cunningham and before him Fran Tarkington, most of the past great QBs you can name are more than likely ESTPs. You'll just have to wait for Young's BT until after the draft like I'm waiting, although we can guess right now that Lienert is probably an ENTP just because the odds are high on that. You don't HAVE to give a test. EDIT: I got carried away!
Dude, look at the TEAMS these QBs played versus the TEAMS the RBs played on- big differences. I have said a bad QB will kill you. It is way too difficult to overcome TOs, and if you have a QB that turns the ball over you will lose. There is a fact you are missing here : Bradshaw HOF played with Harris HOF, Elway HOF played with TD HOF, Aikman with Smith, ect... Another, interesting tidbit on Elway, who knows if he would have ever gotten to the SB if he played for the crappy ass Colts that drafted him - maybe when Dickerson was there because he would have had a running game. "Now take Hall of Fame RBs or take 1st overall pick QBs or take RBs taken in the 1st pick. " E Smith HOF 3 titles , F Harris HOF 4 titles, Bettis HOF 1 loss - QB ints and 1 win, Faulk HOF 1 win 1 loss, Lewis 1 win , TD HOF 2 wins, Payton 1 win, Allen 1win -These are the backs that are in the HOF or will be that have won titles or been in the SB. Thats 14 titles out of 16 appearances- so what is your point? The people that would agree with me are the ones that know the game - defense and a running games win consistently in the NFL- period.
Add the total of Hall of Fame QBs and future ones and it gets skewed again. You got to start including people like Montanta, Staubach, Brady, Griese, Starr, Dawson, Namath, Tarkenton, S. Young, etc and those superbowl appearences and titles get very large compared to the RBs. I won't argue a QB is more important than a 5 man oline, running back and 11 man defense. That is not the choice. It is not like the Texans can choose between drafting 1 QB in Vince Young versus 18 other players including Reggie Bush + a defense + an oline. Unless you trade down, with 1 draft pick you can take 1 QB, or 1 RB, or 1 member of a 5 man OL, or 1 member of an 11 man defense. For any one player/position, QB has the most important impact on a football team than any other single player. Common sense, expert opinion (why stud QBs are drafted so early by teams/scouts) AND facts (team success by the great QBs) all bear it out. I think you don't really disagree with this or you wouldn't couch your argument as to whether having a Hall of Fame QB is better than having a Hall of Fame everything else.
The Rbs that I mentioned were in the time frame you mentioned previously, if you start going back I can name more backs as well. My whole point to this is people WAAY over-value QBs, that is also why they are chosen so highly in the draft. "For any one player/position, QB has the most important impact on a football team than any other single player. Common sense, expert opinion (why stud QBs are drafted so early by teams/scouts) AND facts (team success by the great QBs) all bear it out. I think you don't really disagree with this or you wouldn't couch your argument as to whether having a Hall of Fame QB is better than having a Hall of Fame everything else" How do you explain Steve Smtih in this years playoffs? One guy - not a QB - that absolutely dominated, or let me guess it was all Delhomme. All these all time great QBs that you mentioned had one thing in common, stellar supporting casts - that is undeniable. Campbell and a good not great defense almost got the Oilers to the superbowl, if not for a horrific call we go instead of the them. That is a RB that carried his team. Bradshaw had superior talent around him and a tremendous D. People like to say Sanders never got to the SB, he played on horrible teams that he carried to the playoffs. I have already said bad QBs will kill you, guess what he played with bad ones - Kramer and Mitchell. Payton was the offensive force behind the Bears run, Allen drove the Raiders in 83, Lewis drove the Ravens, ect.. Guys like Aikman rode the coattails of the highly talented teammates he played with. I mean seriously how do you discount the number of HOFs Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman, and Elway played and how important were they to their success. Elway got hammered in the SBs until the talent around him improved, and as much as I loved the guy, TD was more important to their teams that won. Having Elway obviously helped, but TD was the driving force behind their offense. How much did Montana benefit from playing with the greatest freaking football player of all time. So was Montana the driving force behind their team or was it the play making ability of Rice? You bring VY on to this team with no other other help - which may happen if they draft him and aren't able to trade Carr - we will suck again. Great QBs can make plays no question, but how great would Elway have been if he was stuck on the sh***y Colts team that drafted him? How good would SYoung have been if he stayed in Tampa? I prefer teams that run the ball and play D, I would be happy with a QB that takes care of the ball. They are too many examples of QBs taken highly that have flat out failed, and not because of injury, they just plain sucked. I love VY, and his talent, but he is far more from a sure thing then some would like to admit. This is not aout Bush vs Young. You have talked repeatedly about Bush not running inside, VY played out of the gun, I don't ever remember him dropping back to pass. To me that creates more questions then can a RB follow his blocks and run between the tackles. BTW, running between the tackles doesn't mean running with power. How would you feel if a team like the Dolphins picked up Carr and he took them to playoffs and VY turned into another Brooks? QBs have to have play makers to be successful, history has definitely proven that. I don't care if it is Bush or some one else, but we HAVE to improve the levels of our playmakers of no QB we have will have any success.
Did anyone hear the moron on 610 this morning talking about re-signing David Carr? "Now that we've resigned him, we should throw the franchise tag on him and try to trade him." I swear, they need to either a) come up with a better screening process or b) do away with the calls all together.
You have framed this debate very well, but from the wrong perspective- David Carr IS NOT a sure thing Bush and Young are not sure things either. None of the above have proven anything at the NFL level. Nothing. David Carr is not a playmaker. Whether you blame him, the talent around him or a combination - does not matter. Stats are stats. Reggie Bush is not an inside runner. Whether you blame him, his coach or a combination- does not matter. Let me give a perspective. In choosing between L. White or R. Bush to run inside and run short yardage USC coaching chose L. White. For their whole college careers. The reason is L. White is a better inside and short yardage runner. Period. Better- make sense. L. White is bigger and stronger. So what people don't seem to realize is that L. White is a better insider runner than R. Bush. So all the talk about R. Bush can run inside is like saying R. Bush can be a linebacker- sure he can if you want to play him there. However we rationalize it based upon college performance R. Bush is not going to be a good short yardage/inside the tackle runner in the NFL, he wasn't in college and he won't be in the NFL. L. White will be better between the tackles in the NFL - it will play out the same. Now let's go back to all this potential- We know pretty much that David Carr could be a better QB with better talent. Fine. We know pretty much that Reggie Bush can break long runs with speed and moves, especially on the outside or as a receiver. But what are big question marks are can Reggie Bush be an every down runner like Barry Sanders or L. Tomlison? Maybe. But both Sanders and Tomlison PROVED it in college at least. Can David Carr become a good leader and QB, in other words a playmaker. No evidence he has shown in 4 yrs is positive to expect this. He hasn't been a playmaker, he hasn't taken the team on his back and won games. If you examine every Texan victory you can't find one that you would say Carr won this game. Defense, special teams have made more big plays in wins than the QB. So that brings us to Vince Young. If I have to explain his potential as a playmaker, a passer, or a scrambling QB then there must be some other factor why a person is against Young. He has proven all of the above at the highest college level. So what is Young's potential? Anyone of these 3 can Bust! What the Texans should evaluate is which has the long term value to NOT bust. Which player will be a playmaker and a winner for the next 5-7 yrs. That is how you build a good team. Don't even look at position, that is ridiculous with the rebuilding job ahead. Evaluate which player is going to add the most value to your football team in the long term. C Casserly has short sided decision making vision. If they would evaluate players based upon them bringing the most value regardless of position we would have drafted Derrick Johnson last season and we would not have P. Buchanon, J. Babin, D. Faggins, S. Wand, Todd Wade, T. Hollings, C. Bradford, CC Brown, M. Brown, D Ragon, F Weary etc etc etc even on the roster. (they shouldn't be on the roster at all) They passed up very good players to get these players.- The Texans passed up drafting 11 of the starters on the Pittsburgh Steelers to get the roster we have today. Nice job of talent evaluation. The Texans don't have one single impact free agent on the roster. Nice Job. And the Texans are going to pass on Vince Young. Nice Job. I hope they trade the pick. I like Kubiak, I will be happy if he drafts Vince Young, Matt Leinhart, Reggie Bush or trade the pick. But I don't think Bush is the best move, at least not above those other options. I really hope they trade the pick.
I kept hearing this rhetoric from the Texans and from talking heads: "It's Casserly's job to bring in the talent that Capers feels will bring the Texans success." Now, I'm hearing, "It's Casserly's job to bring in the talent that Kubiak feels will bring the Texans success." So, who's to blame? Seriously, is Casserly just a wheeler/dealer to go get whomever the coach requests? Is there a percentage of blame here? I wanted to see Casserly go just as much as Capers. If Kubiak has that much input into personnel decisions, are we in for as much pain as what we're bracing for?
No matter what time frame, no matter what crititeria (team winning, playoff winning, superbowls), the great QBs have a better record of team success than the great running backs. The evidence is overwhelming. It doesn't mean at times QBs were not overrated, or at times other guys didn't get their due, in particular OLs and defenses, but as far as one football player he is the most important guy. Everything points to this--team success, experts who draft players, individual trophies, etc. Other guys can certainly be great, and dominant. But if Smith didn't have an Oline to block for his QB AND a QB who could throw it wouldn't have mattered. It is easy to argue Jerry Rice more stands out as the greatest in his position than any other player in NFL. But was he more important than Montana and Young to most of the 49ers championships runs, or more important than Montana to that franchise's success, no and no. Even on Seattle--which beat the dominant Steve Smith handily, arguably the best running back in the league became less important than their much less distinguished QB to their playoff success. Sometimes teams can win superbowls without an excellent QB, but it is rare and those teams don't duplicate those efforts because everything else has to come together (oline, running game, defense). I trully understand your view is defense and a running game are the two most important components to championship caliber team, with a passing game next (followed by special teams). The problem is overhalling a defense takes 11 guys, and a running game typically 7 (oline, TE or FB, halfback). Bush doesn't help the defense at all, nor the oline, and further the Texans already have a decent HB). He would help the big play ability from the RB spot, but IMO if you want to talk about an overrated component to a football team, it is this. The most important aspects to a running back to helping round out an excellent team churnes first downs, is great in short yardage, and can help save your QB on blitzes, none of the strengths to Bush's game at this point. If RBs have big play, go the distance speed that is gravy, but is not neccessary to be a great back (see Emmitt, Payton, Martin, Bettis, Edge, Holmes, Alexander, etc). It isn't like the Texans have the overmatching oline to create the holes and space Bush thrived in SC. Picking someone like Edge or Alexander in free agency (top 4 RBs) would be offer Carr (or Young) a heck a lot more protection and instill a heck a lot more balance to the offense than Reggie Bush. Further, if you can get anything for Carr (say late 1st, early 2nd) taking VY #1 gives you more options to help you oline (or defense) than Bush at #1 and keeping Carr. Taking Bush at #1 does nothing to get the Texans more of a physical smash mouth team, on either side of the ball. Noone should be confusing Reggie Bush with the next Earl Campbell or Jim Brown.
The Brown's straight released Tim Couch after his disappointing start, I'm not saying the Texans should do the same with Carr, but I don't see why Carr's situation is so different from Couch's and why we shouldn't at least entertain the idea of trading him or drafting another QB. Their career's are eerily similar, both have been very disappointing as #1 picks, both spent their early parts of the career under Chris Palmer as well. I'm just saying that if the 5-11 Lions are talking about replacing Harrington, why is it so crazy that we should do the same?
It's not crazy, just embarassing for the GM But in defense of Carr, he is not terrible. He has potential, a good arm and some decent scrambling ability. A great personality and he is a nice guy- He has trouble picking up open receivers and I think his timing on deep passes has been poor since day one. Carr can be adequate, serviceable and perhaps with better coaching or a better roster he could be a champion. It is a risk to expect that. The decision to draft Vince Young should be made on Vince Young's potential alone. Same with Reggie Bush. If Bush is going to add a great more value than D. Davis as starting running back- more touchdowns, first downs, and # carries then I don't find it strange that they would upgrade the position. If Vince Young is going to add a great more value than D. Carr I don't find it strange they would upgrade that position. I would find it strange they wouldn't.
Speak of the devil. From ESPN INsider Couch drawing interest Former Browns QB Tim Couch is expected to work out for the Texans this week, reports ESPN.com's John Clayton. Couch also is on the Dolphins' radar, and the Seahawks could be interested, as well. Previously, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the Bengals are considering Couch as a backup to Carson Palmer for next season. Current backup Jon Kitna is expected to leave via free agency. One other possible destination for Couch is Tennessee. Couch recently worked out for the Titans. Couch, the No. 1 pick of the 1999 draft, missed all of last season recovering from shoulder surgery.
DScar, we will have to agree to disagree on the value of QBs. I know there are alot of people that would agree with your stance, but believe me there are people that will agree with mine as well. Take the Jerry Rice arguement, a defense has to game plan to try to minimize the effect of play makers, thus making it easier for other guys to get yardage. Take Emmit off the Cowboys and all a D has to do is sit back in a cover 2 and I seriously doubt Aikman takes them to the superbowl 3 times. Bring the SS up to help defend Emmit and all of a sudden it is easier to throw and easier for the QB to look good. I won't even mention the big play possibilities off of play action passing. There are just as many great QBs as RBs that were not surrounded with talent that couldn't get the job done as well - for every Sanders there is a Marino. I also find it peculiar that both Young and Montana are considered all time greats and both beneifted from playing with the great one - not a coincidence in my mind. I understand where you are coming from though, and you are certainly not alone in your opinion.
i'm not comparing the two, believe me... but why does young's performance on a really bad team in tampa bay get excused but carr's performance on a really bad team in houston doesn't? was it because SY "starred" in the usfl? no... he threw 22 INTs to 16 TDs in his two years, leading LA to a 13-23 record. maybe it's because he "clearly" had talent in TB? nope, his QB ratings in tampa were 56.9 and 65.5. carr's lowest has been 62.8 and that was his rookie year starting for an expansion team. funny how people's perception (and memory) can sometimes blur reality...
Because Carr has showed more potential. Harrington sucks, doesn't get respect from teammates, and he chokes. Carr's stats haven't been great, though they are better than Harringtons and he has showed much more poise and gets respect. Kubiak and Reeves both agree Carr can be very good, if they thought he sucked they would trade him.
Now that is pathetic! The Rockets and the Texans must have the same scouts. This is why I thought Casserly should have left with Capers. And, the Texans have one of the NFL's highest payrolls. There is no excuse for this mess. That is why I would have prefered a clean sweep and a do-over. I want offensive linemen, defensive linemen, and Vince Young. Bush is the logical choice and the Carr extension probably seals the deal, but VY is magic. He will star in the NFL; he will be an uninjured Michael Vick, maybe better. He is just magic.
Couch would still be starting somewhere if he didn't have his injury problems. He wasn't as sucky as Harrington. Drafting VY is not really knock on Carr. Only having Brady, Palmer, Peyton, Roeth, or McNabb on my team already would dissade me from drafting VY outright. Carr has a lot to prove to show he is in their league, I like VY's chances better. (Vick versus VY would make it a tough call, I probably try to trade Vick).
