Phillip Rivers

[Clarkmeister]

Well, that holdout worked out just swimmingly.

[brettbrettr]

Yeah, if the Jets start thinking QB in the offseason, and especially if they start thinking #1 pick type QB, I'd rather just send the pick to SD for him.

[thatpfunk]

Leinart > Rivers?

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
Leinart > Rivers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dunno. Rivers certainly has the better arm, and two years practicing with NFL should make him an instant starter wherver he goes. If for some reason the Jets have a choice with either of these guys and we decide ot go QB, I'd prob go Rivers b/c Curtis, if he's got anything left, won't in 2 years when Leinert can make an impact. I"m not saying that River is going to be the best Rivers can be in his first start, but he'll be further along than Leinert is all.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that holdout worked out just swimmingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? It worked out awesome for him, hes getting paid $40,000,000 guarenteed to site on the bench.

He probably has the best job in the NFL


edit - unless of course you were being sarcastic.

[Jack of Arcades]

Because Rivers was going to be a starter as a rookie, right? Right.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Leinart > Rivers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask Norm Chow. He coached Leinart at USC and Rivers at N. C. State, so he would be a good judge.

There is only one L in Philip Rivers.

[utmt40]

IMHO I think that they are both schmucks.

[sammysusar]

I think he was going to start because SD was basically through with Breese.
I dont think Bresse is that great a qb (maybe a little above nfl avg.) but gates and tomlinson are unbeleiveable forces which makes his job a lot easier.
So i think rivers would probably be playing well for SD but is hard to bench a guy who you can count on to not the turn the ball over and make good decisions.

[Jack of Arcades]

Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

and everyone always thinks youre right....

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, LT just sucked last year. What with his 1,800 yards, 18 TD's and all.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, LT just sucked last year. What with his 1,800 yards, 18 TD's and all.

[/ QUOTE ]
jack only cares about rushing avg.

[sammysusar]

LaDanian did have a bad ankle last yr. So i think his avg. was down a bit especially early in the yr. maybe he'll go for 2K this yr.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, LT just sucked last year. What with his 1,800 yards, 18 TD's and all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea but he didn't catch 100 passes like the year before, he sucks!!! (pure sarcasm he had a great year)

[gonores]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? It worked out awesome for him, hes getting paid $40,000,000 guarenteed to site on the bench.

He probably has the best job in the NFL

[/ QUOTE ]

Some players aren't losers who are in football for the money. They actually want to compete.

Not to mention the obvious fact that his next contract isn't going to be worth much.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? It worked out awesome for him, hes getting paid $40,000,000 guarenteed to site on the bench.

He probably has the best job in the NFL

[/ QUOTE ]

Some players aren't losers who are in football for the money. They actually want to compete.

Not to mention the obvious fact that his next contract isn't going to be worth much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering his rookie contract is 6 years and considering he'll likely be traded to a team for whom he can start, his next contract has the possibility to be just fine.

[Roybert]

I'm a huge Giants fan who happens to live in San Diego, and I think some might have to take another look at what Eli did last Spring.

I can't defend what he did (not that I'm complaining /images/graemlins/smirk.gif), but given the Chargers storied history of tough negotiations with draft picks, it is reasonable to assume that Eli would be holding that clipboard right now if he didn't demand the trade.

I also love Rivers complaining about a lack of playing time the day after the Bolts beat the bag out of the Giants and Brees went something like 22-25. The media out here loves to spin it by saying the Chargers got the good kid and the Giants got the punk, but after a huge holdout and complaints about playing time the day after your team drops 44, you gotta maybe wonder.

[jgorham]

I read that interview and I don't think it is fair to charactarize Rivers as a complainer. He simply said that he wants to start somewhere next year. Which I think is pretty reasonable. Besides that, though, the interview pointed out that the team winning was the number one priority, and even that he is good friends with Drew Brees. Obviously he isn't in the situation he expected to be in, and I think his position is pretty reasonable.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? It worked out awesome for him, hes getting paid $40,000,000 guarenteed to site on the bench.

He probably has the best job in the NFL

[/ QUOTE ]

Some players aren't losers who are in football for the money. They actually want to compete.

Not to mention the obvious fact that his next contract isn't going to be worth much.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was an unproven rookie who held out for training camp and 2 (?) preseaon games. He was the last rookie to sign. I think hes in it for the money more than others and didn't mind a guarenteed sitting on the bench for a good period of time.

[fingokra]

On the other hand San Diego never really wanted to sign Eli. They got exactly what the management wanted all along. They got a QB that they think is at least close to as good, plus a butt load of draft picks, plus they don't have to sign Manning to a huge contract.

The Mannings were nothing but San Diego's scape goat. For the reasons above San Diego wanted to bail out of the first pick. They knew their fans wanted Manning and would be upset if they didn't pick him. To get their way and save face San Diego needed to sway their fans from wanting Manning.

To do this they brought in Archie and had someone high up tell him in privacy that San Diego wasn't the place for him and he should go elsewher. Archie says no problem, how about New York. San Diego management leaks to the press that Eli wants to go to New York and won't sign with San Diego. This turns the San Diego fan base against the Mannings. It also allows San Diego to get what they wanted all along while making the Mannings look like the bad guys.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, LT just sucked last year. What with his 1,800 yards, 18 TD's and all.

[/ QUOTE ]
jack only cares about rushing avg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's go with an extreme example and say Kevin Faulk gets 800 rushes and gets 1800 rushing yards. Was that a good year? Of course it wasn't.

LT was like that, just less extreme; there's a point in yards per carry (in various situations; 3 yards on 3rd and 3 is obviously a lot betteer than 3 yards on first and ten) where no matter how many yards you get over the season, you're not adding value with each individual rush.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, LT just sucked last year. What with his 1,800 yards, 18 TD's and all.

[/ QUOTE ]
jack only cares about rushing avg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's go with an extreme example and say Kevin Faulk gets 800 rushes and gets 1800 rushing yards. Was that a good year? Of course it wasn't.

LT was like that, just less extreme; there's a point in yards per carry (in various situations; 3 yards on 3rd and 3 is obviously a lot betteer than 3 yards on first and ten) where no matter how many yards you get over the season, you're not adding value with each individual rush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a big stat guy and all, but I completely disagree with this when it comes to football. Just too much that has to be factored in. LT played on a good team last year - meaning he had a lot of carries at the ends of games where he was grinding down the clock. I just think that kind of criticism is overrated. He's a stud, period.

[jgorham]

Too late to edit my reply, so will just put it here. Found the link to the Philip Rivers interview (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=2172056)

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a big stat guy and all, but I completely disagree with this when it comes to football. Just too much that has to be factored in. LT played on a good team last year - meaning he had a lot of carries at the ends of games where he was grinding down the clock. I just think that kind of criticism is overrated. He's a stud, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this at all. There are lots of runners on winning teams and it doesn't hurt them much. Last year, Curtis Martin, Corey Dillon, Warrick Dunn, and Edgerrin James come to mind. This year, he's exploded in the two games that San Diego has won. Sunday, Deuce McAllister got 80 yards in the fourth quarter "grinding out the clock." And I'm even taking that into account - in the fourth quarter when you're ahead, it takes less yardage to be a "successful play."

The problem with LT was the problem with Barry is the problem with Deuce, etc. So often he gets stuffed at the line and then he pads the yards by busting an 80 yarder. Sure, that's valuable, but it limits your options on 3rd and 3 when you can't get a consistent 3 yards. People like to play up his versatility, but LT really is a limited back. Sure, he can catch balls - but more often than not, he's getting 6 yards on 3rd and 8 out of the backfield. Yeah, that'd be a good play on 1st and 10 but you need 8 yards, not 6, so it really doesn't matter.

A guy like Priest circa 2003 or Faulk circa 2000, you can hand the ball off on 1st and 10 and the majority of the time, you're in 2nd and 5. With LT, you're often in 2nd and 8. Now, he may break one loose, but how many drives stalled out (especially pre-Gates) because LT gets stuffed at the line of scrimmage on 1st and 2nd down?

This is why high-percentage runners are more valuable than low-percentage runners even if their ypc is lower.

[HajiShirazu]

I always thought Rivers was overrated and went almost a full round too early, so I think it worked out well for him. He gets to collect his full contract without having to worry about being released, without showing that he doesn't have the tools to make it in the league.

[thatpfunk]

I'm sure you have a stat to back it up, what is LTs first down ypc?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you have a stat to back it up, what is LTs first down ypc?

[/ QUOTE ]

YPC isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm not saying what his average is, but something more like: what percentage of time does he gain 0 or less yards, 1 yard, 2 yard, 3 yards, etc. I don't know it offhand, but for his career I believe it's somewhere about 58% of the time he gains less than 4 yards on 1st and 10, compared to the league average of 54% and guys like Priest c. 2003 with like monstrous 42%.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? It worked out awesome for him, hes getting paid $40,000,000 guarenteed to site on the bench.

He probably has the best job in the NFL

[/ QUOTE ]

Some players aren't losers who are in football for the money. They actually want to compete.

Not to mention the obvious fact that his next contract isn't going to be worth much.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was an unproven rookie who held out for training camp and 2 (?) preseaon games. He was the last rookie to sign. I think hes in it for the money more than others and didn't mind a guarenteed sitting on the bench for a good period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ever see the conditions of the contract that was offered first? Some of the conditional money that made the contract seem bloated and very attractive was utterly ridiculous. Terms such as leading the Chargers to a Super Bowl Victory and being SB MVP his first year would net a bonus. To get most of the incentives, he would have had to have basically been a football Jesus with a perfect QB rating, 400+ yards per game, no losses, and lead SD to 15 straight SB vitories. The SD managment is notorious for such contract offers, and disputes.

The initial contract SD offered with flat out littered with absolutely unatainable incentive clauses. Now his contract holdout prevented him from competing for the starting job his rookie year, and has cost him any chance at any of the many incentives which are still in his contract. However, the holdout did bring more guaranteed money, and more attainable incentives.

Double edge sword indeed.

[sammysusar]

In alot of ways i think brees and him are pretty similar.
Both have only average arm strength but were expected to get by on making good decisions. Rivers i beleive was considered a second round pick until about a month before the draft.
Brees has shown he'll play pretty well within their system. So i think trading rivers is probably the most likely option.

[SCfuji]

i think from a business standpoint all the players that holdout are just trying to get as much money as they can while they are still unproven. if they sign early and dont get as much as they could have gotten and break some legs and sprain some knees its over. im all for players getting as much as they can milk from the teams. i know i would.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, that's valuable, but it limits your options on 3rd and 3 when you can't get a consistent 3 yards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just isn't true though. LT is good in short yardage situations.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that holdout worked out just swimmingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

clark,

what is your opinion on the argument I'm hearing here and there that "San Diego is financially committed to Rivers, so even if Brees takes them to the playoffs, they'll think about daling him and building around Rivers"

I think it's bogus

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, that holdout worked out just swimmingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

clark,

what is your opinion on the argument I'm hearing here and there that "San Diego is financially committed to Rivers, so even if Brees takes them to the playoffs, they'll think about daling him and building around Rivers"

I think it's bogus

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's obvious that if Brees continues to play well they'll have to deal Rivers to the highest bidder. They can't afford the cap implications of him sitting on the bench and they can't mess with a Super Bowl contender by jacking with what's working.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that holdout worked out just swimmingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, the Chargers front office is notoriously tough to negotiate with. They are willing to play chicken with players. All of our first round draft picks going back to Tomlinson have held out. Several missed training camp.

The GM went on record stating that Rivers will not be traded before the trade deadline this season. I have to believe that at some point we will try to move him, but it might be hard to get value back on that 1(4) pick that was spent on him.

At the time of the draft, I opposed the Rivers "selection" and I favored taking Roy Williams at #4 overall --both because I was not sold on Rivers and because I thought Brees could be a good QB with some more talent.

[SCfuji]

i think we can sort of thank the drafting of rivers for lighting a little fire under brees. im really happy this team is a contender. all those crap seasons since like 94. ugh.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
The GM went on record stating that Rivers will not be traded before the trade deadline this season. I have to believe that at some point we will try to move him, but it might be hard to get value back on that 1(4) pick that was spent on him.


[/ QUOTE ]

He definitely won't move before the offseason. Almost no one ever does. And you're right, getting value for him will be tough.

And I'm not absolving the Chargers front office either. But his advisors have put him in a terrible situation unless he just totally sucks, in which case I suppose this is actually the ideal outcome. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Sincere]

They are going to take big cap hits if they trade him too. They might as well keep both of them. Look at the Jets, anything can happen, a good backup in a necessity.

Who would be dumb enough to give up a #1 for a 25 year old rookie anyway. Rivers will be 25 1/2 at the beginning of next season. I'd rather spend a #1 on a 22 year old rookie like Vince Young

[brettbrettr]

You're an idiot. 25 is not old for a football player, much less a QB.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
You're an idiot. 25 is not old for a football player, much less a QB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Chris Weinke was a freshman at FSU when he was 25. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Sincere]

All Im saying is, why trade a #1 for a guy who will be almost 26, when you can just draft a younger guy. Buy the time Rivers hits his grove he'll be 27 or 28. Look at Alex Smith, he's 21, wouldnt you like to have those extra years?

Oh and thanks for the name calling, it really validates your argument and shows real class. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
All Im saying is, why trade a #1 for a guy who will be almost 26, when you can just draft a younger guy. Buy the time Rivers hits his grove he'll be 27 or 28. Look at Alex Smith, he's 21, wouldnt you like to have those extra years?

Oh and thanks for the name calling, it really validates your argument and shows real class. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the name calling. I'm drunk. But for the record, Rivers learning curve is much less than Young's or Leinert or any other rookie QB. He's ready to play. He won't be his best immediately, of course, but he doesn't need 2 years to get there.

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for the name calling. I'm drunk. But for the record, Rivers learning curve is much less than Young's or Leinert or any other rookie QB. He's ready to play. He won't be his best immediately, of course, but he doesn't need 2 years to get there.


[/ QUOTE ]

No prob, thanks for appoligizing. I dont know why you would say he is ready to play or that his learning curve is less. Nobody knows if he is ready or what his learning curve will be, he has never played in the NFL regular season. Just because he has rode the pine for 2 years doesnt mean he is ready. There is only so much a QB can learn holding a clipboard. Carson Palmer sat for a year and he still had a big learning curve, he stunk last year until the end of the season. Rivers could end up haveing a 1 year learning curve like Palmer or a 5+ year learning curve like Harrington. It is still unknown if he can play in the NFL. I feel the same way about Henson as a Cowboys fan. They keep saying he's the QB of the future. Well, hell, he's already 25 1/2, buy the time the "future" is ready it will be time to draft another younger future QB.

[brettbrettr]

"a 5+ year learning curve like Harrington."

At the end of 5 years he prob won't be good.

As for Henson, he was so long out of football that he doesn't belong in this conversation. He is a unique case, for sure, and best of luck with him.

Of course I don't know that Rivers is ready. I just think that practicing with NFL players makes him closer than a rookie. Its unprovable either way, for sure, but I think it seems reasonable.