Tyler Wilson Staying At Arkansas

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by diehard

Really? Then what does that say about these college QBs? The demand for QBs is higher than the supply? That's like an unemployed person who's skilled to do a job not applying himself to companies that are hiring. Make sense out of nonsense.

If the demand for QB's weren't higher than the supply every year, each team would have a fine QB.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

We need to lure Steve Deberg out of retirement.

I bet he can still play...lol!

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We should ban you and strip you of your admin privileges for even engaging in this discussion

What next? Posting BBQ Pics.....

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

If the demand for QB's weren't higher than the supply every year, each team would have a fine QB.

Though I agree that not every team can have an adequate quarterback every season (it's not possible because even if there are more than 32 adequate quarterbacks, it's not like there's no incentive for a team to have two), the real issue is that not every team can win every year. Because the wins and losses are of course zero-sum.

In essence, 'level of performance x' which is adequate for a consistent winner might be inadequate for a consistent loser. Even though the actual grade on player performance is no different. Matt Ryan and Alex Smith wouldn't receive totally disparate grades based on their skill sets (and they are asked to do fairly similar things), but Ryan throws for a heck of a lot more yards, points, completions (with better efficiency numbers), and wins more consistently than Alex Smith does, so the Falcons don't need to bring in competition for Ryan where as the 49ers would be in big trouble if they don't have competition for Smith next season.

So QB demand is always going to be fairly constant every year because teams will always lose and fewer teams will always string together losing seasons. So even if the supply of quality quarterbacks in the NFL exceeds 40, that will just drive the standards to win up so that demand doesn't change any.

Bottom line is that losing teams/organizations will always need quarterback upgrades, even if they are performing competently.

[SOUL-SKINS]

Originally Posted by diehard

I'm starting to think these college QBs are staying in school to keep from being drafted by the Redskins. Damn.

Dude that was funny shit ....

[diehard]

Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS

Dude that was funny shit ....

I thought so to but, the mods are out to get me. Again...

[SmootSmack]

It's cause we don't like you. I mean I like you but Summo has a problem with you. Says your attempt at 17th century Austrian style graphics are so 13th century Sicilian. Sorry it had to be said

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Though I agree that not every team can have an adequate quarterback every season (it's not possible because even if there are more than 32 adequate quarterbacks, it's not like there's no incentive for a team to have two), the real issue is that not every team can win every year. Because the wins and losses are of course zero-sum.

In essence, 'level of performance x' which is adequate for a consistent winner might be inadequate for a consistent loser. Even though the actual grade on player performance is no different. Matt Ryan and Alex Smith wouldn't receive totally disparate grades based on their skill sets (and they are asked to do fairly similar things), but Ryan throws for a heck of a lot more yards, points, completions (with better efficiency numbers), and wins more consistently than Alex Smith does, so the Falcons don't need to bring in competition for Ryan where as the 49ers would be in big trouble if they don't have competition for Smith next season.

So QB demand is always going to be fairly constant every year because teams will always lose and fewer teams will always string together losing seasons. So even if the supply of quality quarterbacks in the NFL exceeds 40, that will just drive the standards to win up so that demand doesn't change any.

Bottom line is that losing teams/organizations will always need quarterback upgrades, even if they are performing competently.

Very well said.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by IrMitchell

I'm pretty sure he wasn't being totally serious, it just seems like it's near impossible to get a quarterback these days. Had there been one in our reach the last two years, I'm pretty confident we'd have gotten one.

Thanks, I was worried there.

I of course, was dead serious.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by diehard

I thought so to but, the mods are out to get me. Again...

Again?

We don't even know who you are.

Are you the one with the dolls in the freezer?

[diehard]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Again?

We don't even know who you are.

Are you the one with the dolls in the freezer?

Nah. I'm the one (formerly BossHog) who was banned for calling Laverneues Coles a punk bitch.

[SOUL-SKINS]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Again?

We don't even know who you are.

Are you the one with the dolls in the freezer?

Haha .... Now that was funny shit too ... But I believe that was Alvin Walton...

[MTK]

Originally Posted by diehard

Nah. I'm the one (formerly BossHog) who was banned for calling Laverneues Coles a punk bitch.

Bosshog isn't a banned profile...

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Though I agree that not every team can have an adequate quarterback every season (it's not possible because even if there are more than 32 adequate quarterbacks, it's not like there's no incentive for a team to have two), the real issue is that not every team can win every year. Because the wins and losses are of course zero-sum.

In essence, 'level of performance x' which is adequate for a consistent winner might be inadequate for a consistent loser. Even though the actual grade on player performance is no different. Matt Ryan and Alex Smith wouldn't receive totally disparate grades based on their skill sets (and they are asked to do fairly similar things), but Ryan throws for a heck of a lot more yards, points, completions (with better efficiency numbers), and wins more consistently than Alex Smith does, so the Falcons don't need to bring in competition for Ryan where as the 49ers would be in big trouble if they don't have competition for Smith next season.

So QB demand is always going to be fairly constant every year because teams will always lose and fewer teams will always string together losing seasons. So even if the supply of quality quarterbacks in the NFL exceeds 40, that will just drive the standards to win up so that demand doesn't change any.

Bottom line is that losing teams/organizations will always need quarterback upgrades, even if they are performing competently.

If we grant the impossible hypothetical scenario that there are 40 quality QB's in the NFL and every team has at least one of these, one might suspect that there would be a culture change. In economics, when supply surpasses demand, the value of the commodity decreases, and we might expect the same of NFL QB's. For instance, the idea that new regimes need their own new QB may become less real. Also, crediting QB's for wins and blaming them for losses may also decline as a practice. That is, in this hypothetical scenario we might expect that other positions might gain in importance vis-a-vis the QB.

But this scenario, under current conditions, is impossible. There has never been an NFL season where every team had a satisfactory franchise QB and there is no reason to presume that things will be different any time soon.

Therefore in the end you and I are arguing the same thing from different frames of reference: hunger for QB's is an NFL constant. Demand will continue to outstrip supply.

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Thanks, I was worried there.

I of course, was dead serious.

Didn't think it was worth being sarcastic about.