- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
It seems that Doug Nussmeier will be named the Saint’s new OC
Posted on 2/19/25 at 1:09 am
Posted on 2/19/25 at 1:09 am
15
Posted on 2/19/25 at 1:10 am to HTowntiger1Jr
quote:
How does this affect Garrett next season?
Unless Garrett is QB1 with the Saints next season, probably not much.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 1:44 am to HTowntiger1Jr
As a Saints and Tigers fan i hope that the Saints draft Nuss at number 32 overall.
That means that the Saints win the SuperBowl and Nuss was good enough to be a first rounder.
That means that the Saints win the SuperBowl and Nuss was good enough to be a first rounder.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 2:18 am to tigersaint24
You want the Saints to win the SB with a QB that lead them to the SB and draft a QB in the first round to replace the QB that just won the SB?
In this scenario, which QB would lead the Saints to the SB and win and then be replaced?
In this scenario, which QB would lead the Saints to the SB and win and then be replaced?
Posted on 2/19/25 at 4:23 am to MasterKnight
The Ravens won the Super Bowl in 2000 with Trent Dilfer and an offense that could barely put up any points, but one of the best defenses of all time. Winning the Super Bowl is not always about the QB. Heck, in Peyton Manning's last season, he was not good at all, but won the SB. Again, because of his defense.
It may not be common, but is certainly possible to win a SB and not have a good QB.
It may not be common, but is certainly possible to win a SB and not have a good QB.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 4:35 am to Metaloctopus
Manning was still better than most QBs and everyone knew that would be his last year. The NFL was completely different in 2000 than it is today. If you don't have a good QB, you are not making the playoffs. You won't have a deep run in the playoffs without a good QB even if somehow make It with a great defense.
So those points are not valid. The NFL is about offense now. Everything is geared for explosive offenses. Name one team that has win the SB in the last 10 years with a game manager QB?
I know Philly won in 2018 with Nick Foles but Wentz was having an MVP year before injury and they were not going to get a QB in first round when he would be ready for the following season. No one would know how much that injury affected him.
So those points are not valid. The NFL is about offense now. Everything is geared for explosive offenses. Name one team that has win the SB in the last 10 years with a game manager QB?
I know Philly won in 2018 with Nick Foles but Wentz was having an MVP year before injury and they were not going to get a QB in first round when he would be ready for the following season. No one would know how much that injury affected him.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 4:49 am to Metaloctopus
This may be one of the most idiotic statements on here today. Maybe of the year so far
Posted on 2/19/25 at 4:57 am to MasterKnight
Why are you so hostile about this? I proved your point wrong, and you proceed to tell me that my point are invalid, based on no evidence to back up that my points are invalid.
He had a QBR of 44.2 that year. Why do you suppose I said that he was not good at all? That was being kind. He was actually terrible, and was maybe even worse in the playoffs. His shoulder was completely shot.
What does this have to do with point that his team won the SB with him at QB, despite him being really bad at that point? They knew it was his last year, so that renders the point invalid? What?
2000 was not 1980. There were a lot of points and yards being put up, and the general rule was that you wouldn't win the SB without a good QB, just as it is today. And yet, it was possible, just as it is today.
I already did, except they arguably didn't even really have a game manager. He was just bad. Manning and the Broncos was exactly 10 years ago.
This is even more puzzling than your previous comment about how everyone knew it would be Manning's last year. You debunk yourself by saying you know that Philly won with Foles, but then somehow use Wentz being an MVP candidate to justify how this apparently doesn't count. Why does it matter if they were going to draft a QB in the first round, or not? That has nothing to do with the fact that they won a Super Bowl without a great QB.
We all know it isn't common. I said as much, did I not? But the fact remains that the possibility exists that a team could win a SB and still need a QB. That was my point. It was as simple as that. The fact that you felt the need to argue with known, and also recent occurrences, and even to argue with yourself, just to show that you're right, is beyond me.
quote:
Manning was still better than most QBs
He had a QBR of 44.2 that year. Why do you suppose I said that he was not good at all? That was being kind. He was actually terrible, and was maybe even worse in the playoffs. His shoulder was completely shot.
quote:
and everyone knew that would be his last year
What does this have to do with point that his team won the SB with him at QB, despite him being really bad at that point? They knew it was his last year, so that renders the point invalid? What?
quote:
The NFL was completely different in 2000 than it is today.
2000 was not 1980. There were a lot of points and yards being put up, and the general rule was that you wouldn't win the SB without a good QB, just as it is today. And yet, it was possible, just as it is today.
quote:
Name one team that has win the SB in the last 10 years with a game manager QB?
I already did, except they arguably didn't even really have a game manager. He was just bad. Manning and the Broncos was exactly 10 years ago.
quote:
I know Philly won in 2018 with Nick Foles but Wentz was having an MVP year before injury and they were not going to get a QB in first round when he would be ready for the following season. No one would know how much that injury affected him.
This is even more puzzling than your previous comment about how everyone knew it would be Manning's last year. You debunk yourself by saying you know that Philly won with Foles, but then somehow use Wentz being an MVP candidate to justify how this apparently doesn't count. Why does it matter if they were going to draft a QB in the first round, or not? That has nothing to do with the fact that they won a Super Bowl without a great QB.
We all know it isn't common. I said as much, did I not? But the fact remains that the possibility exists that a team could win a SB and still need a QB. That was my point. It was as simple as that. The fact that you felt the need to argue with known, and also recent occurrences, and even to argue with yourself, just to show that you're right, is beyond me.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 4:58 am to tzimme4
quote:
This may be one of the most idiotic statements on here today. Maybe of the year so far
Why? Which part was wrong? I gave specific examples to prove exactly what I said to be true. How, then, can it possibly be idiotic? Could it be, perhaps, that you don't actually know what you're talking about?
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:00 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
It may not be common, but is certainly possible to win a SB and not have a good QB.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:03 am to MasterKnight
quote:
You want the Saints to win the SB with a QB that lead them to the SB and draft a QB in the first round to replace the QB that just won the SB?
Yes. It's a rantards wet dream. You also have to fire some coaches too though.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:03 am to soccerfüt
You, too, huh? You also don't remember just 10 years ago with the Broncos? Do you all think that Manning was still slingin' it for 5,000 yards that year, and forgot that his arm might as well have been falling off?
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:16 am to HTowntiger1Jr
quote:
Awesome hire for the Saint’s. How does this affect Garrett next season?
I, too, was affected when I was in school and my dad got a new job with a different company... so affected I can't remember
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:36 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
It may not be common, but is certainly possible to win a SB and not have a good QB.
His name is Jalen Hurts.
2,903 18 TDs / 5 INTs
#1 defense (by far)
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:45 am to Locoguan0
quote:
His name is Jalen Hurts.
2,903 18 TDs / 5 INTs
#1 defense (by far)
Yeah, I didn't use him as an example, because I think he's a pretty good QB. Gets a little too much credit, but he plays his role in that offense. They had a 2,000 yard rusher, and Hurts, himself, ran for over 600 yards. He still averaged 8 yards per pass. They just don't pass as much as other teams.
But I did give clear examples of bad QB's winning Super Bowl's, yet people are acting like I'm promoting flat Earth theory over here. These instances are rare, but possible. "No! it cannot happen, I say! Stone this man!".
Gotta love it.
This post was edited on 2/19/25 at 5:48 am
Posted on 2/19/25 at 6:23 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
What does this have to do with point that his team won the SB with him at QB, despite him being really bad at that point? They knew it was his last year, so that renders the point invalid? What?
Because it was known to be his last year, the Broncos would not have been drafting a QB in the first round with him still on the roster.
The Broncos did in fact draft a QB in the first that year. Though in retrospect they shouldn’t have as it was an absolute shite QB draft.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 6:31 am to HTowntiger1Jr
quote:
Awesome hire for the Saint’s.
Based on what?
Posted on 2/19/25 at 6:38 am to HTowntiger1Jr
quote:
How does this affect Garrett next season?
I guess his dad may get to see him play in-person a few times during his senior season?
Posted on 2/19/25 at 6:43 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
Because it was known to be his last year, the Broncos would not have been drafting a QB in the first round with him still on the roster.
The Broncos did in fact draft a QB in the first that year. Though in retrospect they shouldn’t have as it was an absolute shite QB draft.
Again, why are we talking about drafting a QB the next year? My point was that it was possible to win a SB without a good QB. So it makes no difference whether they knew it was his last year or not. The fact is that he was bad, and they won it anyway, but clearly would have been looking for an upgrade, whether it was the draft, free agency, or a trade.
When someone tries a "gotcha" at another poster, insinuating that it's dumb to think that a team would win a SB with a QB that they would possibly want to replace, and I respond with instances where it's happened, I don't see how it matters whether or not that team knew it was that QB's last year. As bad as he was, they would have had no choice but to replace him, regardless. They won because of their defense, which is the point. There is a world where a team can win a Super Bowl with a not-so-good QB, if they have a great defense, thus quite possibly needing a new QB. That's it. I've noted several times that's it a rarity. I'm not here trying to sell anyone on the idea of building a team around the concept of having mediocre QB play, with a great defense. Which kind of seems how people are reacting as if I've said, rather than taking my point for what it actually is.
This post was edited on 2/19/25 at 6:46 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News