Originally Posted by Hoosier Red
Well you specifically said there weren't 16 quarterbacks you'd take ahead of him. Which of those 16 would you argue he's been better than so far?
Can he get better? Sure. So can pretty much everyone on that list. Who would you see him providing more value than over the next 3 years?
I'm not sure we disagree as a whole. My disagreement was mainly with another poster who said his first two years were "Crazy good."
But on the whole, I don't think even a Matt Schaub helps a team get to the Super Bowl. He may not detract from their chances, but if everything else on the team has to be elite because the quarterback is just above average, it strikes me as a flawed plan.
QBs are like aces in MLB, a limited quantity, so if you don't have one, you go with the one that gives you the best chance of winning among what's available. It would seem in theory that you would want each unit to be elite, wouldn't you? So is it poor planning that causes a team to take that area and have to settle for the best that fits among available options? For example, did the Ravens want Dilfer to be their QB, or was that the way things shook out in the multivariable world of team building? So Dalton isn't a top 10 QB, no one is arguing that he is. But the discussion began with "he will not lead the Bengals to the Promised Land." I think there is a lot more going into that than if he is or not in the same league as the top QBs in the league. Because it isn't like Manning is flashing a lot of rings. You would think he had to start ordering toe rings based on what I've been reading in this discussion.