S
sg3
Guest
Two years of being the worst rated QB in the NFL is not the kind of experience that IMO engenders the sort of confidence you seem to have in him
Pick #103 - Bryce Petty - QB - Baylor
- Thread starter hobson54
- Start date
if you are talking about who is in better to start right now, i don't disagree. petty should not be a consideration at this point, and probably not at all for the 2015 season. either geno or fitz should be the QB this year and the only way petty should see the field is if we are hit by major injury and/or we stink and are playing out the stretch.
Not that I am a mod - but this is a Bryce Petty thread...lets keep the arguing of Geno Smith on his 15 other non-merged threads....if we can.
Man, it's a zoo around here sometimes.
Man, it's a zoo around here sometimes.
S
sg3
Guest
And you're the one who keeps hijacking every thread by introducing the your man crush Geno into themNot that I am a mod - but this is a Bryce Petty thread...lets keep the arguing of Geno Smith on his 15 other non-merged threads....if we can.
Man, it's a zoo around here sometimes.
S
sg3
Guest
ZzzzxzxxxxMan, the force is weak with this one. Actually, my friend, Jets82, Lounap, Hobson, and SE introduced Geno Smith into this very thread. So save your complaining for them. Go to page 1 and check for yourself.
Why are you always wrong?
I actually have in the past, many times, and of course I was accused of making excuses for Geno by the folks who didn't want to hear anything other than Geno stinks and he needs to be benched, which may or may not have been true, but that doesn't change the fact that not every INT is the QB's fault.
Like I said, Supe, if there is a stat in football and the way it is tabulated that I would overhaul and turn into separate stats, one attributed to the QB and the other attributed to the Receivers, its the INT ... worst kept stat in football in my view, which paints a distorted picture ... stats should make things clear, not blurry, and IMO the INT stat, by the flawed way its designed, creates a blurry image, it does not give you an accurate picture.
If I was running a football team I would tell my scouts, pro and college, don't use the official stats for INT's, don't cite them in your reports, watch the film and cite only the INT's that are the QB's fault, the rest are not relevant.
Blast from the past, didn't Sanchez have a season where three of his INTs were actually receptions that were ripped out of the receiver's hands?
Doesn't change what he was as an overall player, but it doesn't get much more unlucky than that . . .
I understand your stance, but it is hard to say where the line stops. Should a running back not get credit for a fumble if the play was blocked incorrectly and someone comes free and strips him? He never looked to his right because the OLB was supposed to be doubled by the TE/OT, but guess what, the got through anyway and stripped him...should the RB not get credit for the fumble?
I just think in a team game, the QB has to take the hit...like in basketball when the PG throw the ball for the cutter...but the cutter doesn't keep going to the rim, who gets the turnover? The PG, even when the cutter stops the cut. Same thing for QB when a WR runs a wrong pattern, drops the ball, cuts the route short when he shouldn't have, who gets credit for the INT as a results? The QB. In the film room, they may not get credit, but on ESPN, they do.
Oh yeah, there are all kinds of stats that create a distorted picture, thats why I don't trust stats (entirely). I cite them like everybody else because lets face it, if you like sports we live in a stats world, but IMO the way we keep stats is antiquated and there needs to be a stats revolution, particularly in football.
Baseball, to its credit, has experienced a stats revolution with saber-metrics. Most of us don't use saber-metrics because its complicated, but at least its there for the baseball diehards who want to get a more accurate picture of whats happening on the field and individual performance. Football has nothing like it and IMO its desperately needed. I'm sure behind the scenes there are smart organizations that don't use official stats, but look deeper at cause & effect.
That said, there are still some things that are black and white, even if its flawed and it doesn't tell the whole story. For example, if you are a RB and you take the handoff cleanly, its your responsibility to tuck it away, squeeze the life out of the SOB, and don't put it on the ground, even if some dipshit misses a block and lets you get blind-sided, you have to anticipate big hits that you might not see coming, and hold that ball for dear life.
But yes, you are correct, sometimes when a fumble occurs there is more than one guilty party, the RB takes part of the blame because its his responsibility to keep the ball off the ground, but that doesn't mean he's solely responsible, other people can be culpable too.
Here's another example of football stats and the way we use them being antiquated:
Citing the yards a QB throws for in a game or a season.
Lets say you have two QB's and they both throw for 400 Yards in a Game or 5000 Yards in a season. One QB is playing in an offense that deploys a short to intermediate passing game dependent on creating YAC (Yards After Catch), and the other is more of a downfield passer.
Which of the two QB's is more directly responsible for the 400 or 5000?
The first QB might be a terrific field general and accurate short to intermediate passer who consistently puts the ball in a place where his receivers don't have to break stride and can gain big chucks of YAC, but lets be honest, that QB's 400 or 5000 is not as impressive as the QB who posts similar numbers mostly on the strength of his arm and downfield passing.
Thats why you can argue that Joe Montana was a better QB than Dan Marino, but IMO there's no argument about who was the better passer, that was Dan Marino all day and all night, and I'm a Montana guy.
Citing the yards a QB throws for in a game or a season.
Lets say you have two QB's and they both throw for 400 Yards in a Game or 5000 Yards in a season. One QB is playing in an offense that deploys a short to intermediate passing game dependent on creating YAC (Yards After Catch), and the other is more of a downfield passer.
Which of the two QB's is more directly responsible for the 400 or 5000?
The first QB might be a terrific field general and accurate short to intermediate passer who consistently puts the ball in a place where his receivers don't have to break stride and can gain big chucks of YAC, but lets be honest, that QB's 400 or 5000 is not as impressive as the QB who posts similar numbers mostly on the strength of his arm and downfield passing.
Thats why you can argue that Joe Montana was a better QB than Dan Marino, but IMO there's no argument about who was the better passer, that was Dan Marino all day and all night, and I'm a Montana guy.
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
Stats in football are totally misleading! The fact that strategy essentially dictates that you run the ball when you're winning, and air it out when you're losing means that a QBs numbers in any given game can be heavily influenced by game events out of his control. A guy could trow for 200 yards and 2 TDs, have their running game score a TD and then basically pack it up in the fourth and try to eat the clock. That guy isn't going to get to throw more in that game unless something goes wrong.Maybe the impact of this isn't great, but it is enough combined with other factors, to make me feel less confident in analyzing football players just by looking at their stats.
Great Point, JB, and SBIII is a perfect example. Namath called all the plays in that game at the LOS, but he didn't call his own number ONE TIME in the 4th Qtr of that game, did not throw a single pass in the 4th Qtr, one of the most interesting dynamics from SBIII in my view, but Namath put the team first and he saw the way our defense was controlling the Colts offense in that game, frankly dominating the Colts offense, and he accurately assessed that WE CAN'T LOSE if we don't turn the ball over or make some kind of colossal mistake, and besides, we had been running the ball effectively on those guys all day with Snell, so he didn't throw a single pass in the 4th Qtr because that was the smart play. Ultimately it left him with underwhelming personal stats for that game, which doesn't tell you he was throwing the ball extremely well in that game until HE decided to shut it down ... and win.
And yes, that was Namath's decision. He has told the story, Weeb recommended a certain pass play in the 4th Qtr that looked like it might be there for the taking, but Namath told Weeb its not necessary, we have this game won, lets just run the ball and keep playing defense the way we've been playing it all day and this game is in the bag, no need to take unnecessary risks and maybe give these guys a chance to get back in the game.
Let's get this back on track guys. It's a Bryce Petty thread. Also, in case you've forgotten, you still have this option..........
My only thought is 8 of the top 20 QBs last season were not 1st round picks so I would say a blanket no QBs drafted other than the 1st round would be a bad idea
S
sg3
Guest
Option exercised in both cases
So you'd still add a QB till you get one and then keep adding them, right? Would you draft a developmental QB annually?