Can we all agree on one thing? The whole "Geno has no weapons on the offence" excuse is NOT gonna fly this year!
I can tell from your posts that you've taken courses in logical philosophy; you're well spoken and you use a lot of logical terminology. I agree with your point that any statistical argument in favor of Geno is flawed. The majority of all statistics evaluating his play are extremely derogatory, so searching for the few that are positive is absolutely "cherry picking". Any pro-Geno argument at this point should be centered around on-field play and avoid numbers.
I actually thought he started off last season very similarly to Mark a few years back. Looked pretty good the first couple games, then completely fell off the track. He had that bad pick against Green Bay, but besides that he looked pretty good. Then game after game got slightly worse. Then he got owned by SD/Buffalo and a couple others. Week one against someone (I forget who, maybe Cleveland or Buffalo), Mark looked fantastic. Week 2 he took a brutal shot from someone on Pitt and didnt look the same all year. His confidence was shook, we suffered injuries, and he never recovered. Geno gets 2 games at most from me this year. I'm ok with him starting because I think his ceiling is higher than Fitz this year. But if we see anything similar to last year, he gets an early pull. This roster can make the playoffs with adequate QB play. Hopefully Geno/Fitz can be that guy.
Ryan Fitzpatrick's numbers his first two years as a starter (noting that Fitzpatrick's first two years as a starter came in his 4th and 5th years in the NFL): Year Team G Att Comp Pct Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD TD% Int Int% Lng 20+ 40+ Sck SckY Rate 2009 Buffalo Bills 10 227 127 55.9 22.7 1,422 6.3 142.2 9 4.0 10 4.4 98T 15 4 21 127 69.7 2008 Cincinnati Bengals 13 372 221 59.4 28.6 1,905 5.1 146.5 8 2.2 9 2.4 79 14 2 38 193 70.0
Sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Numbers are objective measures. So, cannot be "flawed". And if you're going to ignore numbers then what are you using as a measurement? dirty uniforms? oh wait, that's another number. This is the most stupid post I've ever read that is not one of my own. ;-)
Almost every single quantitative analysis that evaluates quarterback play will tell you that Geno Smith has been one of the 5 worst quarterbacks in the NFL in his first 2 seasons. Finding some obscure measures to suggest otherwise is simply a delusional attempt to combat that fact. If you were to engage in a statistical argument with somebody regarding Geno, and you had the burden of arguing that he is good, you would be overwhelmed to keep pace with the discussion. However, if you were to engage in an argument that centered around analyzing his game tape, you would have an easier time keeping up. Thus, it is unwise for you to try to bring statistics into a Geno-centric debate.
Then why would any Smith detractor want to ignore numbers? And how else can one objectively measure something without using the real number system? Watching game tape doesn't change that in a particular game Smith had the numbers he had. I can't keep up with illogic. Personally, I'm trying to understand the detractors, but when they quote numbers as a quantifier and then say that one should ignore a subset of those numbers, it tells me they are confused and themselves not really understanding their arguments.
You've mistaken my position, then. I'm not a Smith detractor. I've made multiple pro-Geno arguments in multiple threads suggesting that I would allow him to start at the opening of the season. However, I acknowledge that his stats have been awful to this point in his career. Not even basic quarterback statistics; even advanced stats tell this story: http://forums.theganggreen.com/threads/pff-qbs-in-focus-geno-vs-fitz.84277/ Here's the point where there's been a disconnect in our discussion: while we are both pro-Geno, you seem to support him unconditionally, whereas I am cognizant of the severe deficiencies he's shown and thus approach him with skeptical optimism. I think he can take a substantial step forward in a spread offense with 2 big bodied receivers who fit his play style, plus an improved defense that figures to give him better field position and limit opponents to less points. However, I would not be hesitant to pull the plug on him if he exhibits the same flaws that he has shown even when provided with improved help. To me, Smith's struggles in his first 2 seasons have been due to a medley of factors, his own poor play included. The objective of the beginning of this season (to me) is to see if the removal of some of those factors (lack of playmakers, poor coaching staff, bad secondary) is sufficient to propel him to be a starting caliber quarterback. If not, then on to the next guy. I'm a Jets fan, not a Geno Smith fan.
If Bolwes played him all year and Geno spit the bit it would be Colon's fault, or Brick's.... or something. The good news is TB is neither beholden to Geno nor giving Geno any excuses. If Geno doesn't improve...in the very beginning of the season, he's done. Next man up...Bring in Fitz....
I don't support Smith "unconditionally". I support him. If he performs poorly NOW THAT HE HAS WEAPONS AND A-GAP PROTECTION, I will be asking for his removal. I don't mention his poor numbers simply because those numbers are mentioned by others ad nauseum. My feeling on the disconnect is the notion that mentioning positive statistics is "cherry picking" because the body of work is poor. I could turn that argument around and say that mentioning Smith negative statistics is cherry picking because it leaves out the statistics on the WRs and OL, the non-Smith offensive turnovers, and the lack of turnovers created by the defense. These ALL contribute to a QB's performance and should be allowed to be mentioned in an argument. So, I think we agree on most things: that Smith's struggles can be attributed to many factors--Smith's immaturity, at times poor fundamentals, lack of weapons, poor OL play, lack of defensive turnovers created, absurdly conservative play calling, among other contributing factors. My position has been to argue the positives because the negatives against Smith seem overblown, his potential seems high, and the arguments against him at times absurd "one can't mention positive statistics because the body of work has been negative" to name but one of the more absurd notions. I don't know what your position on Smith is, but if you are telling me that mentioning positives in support of Smith is "Cherry picking" then we just have to disagree on that issue. I also posted Fitzpatrick's numbers his first two years as a starter, which are quite similar in terms of ratings. Yet the Smith detractors completely ignore them because they don't fit in with their arguments against Smith.
According to most metrics Geno was not ranked the worse QB in either 2013 or 2014. And I said specifically that my post was a statistical argument for Geno. You are free to post the counterarguments so long as they are correct. As respects my potential post, if you parse together Geno's last 4/5 games; his Andy Dalton DVOA; his young college breakout age; and high rookie third down conversion rate, the arrow is pointing up on his potential.
sure, I agree, assuming, of course, that those weapons make it to and remain on the field and that the OL additions play significantly better than they did for the majority of Smith's two seasons. Interestingly, the Haters can focus ONLY on the poor games Smith has had and seem eager for his failure. My focus is on how much better Smith will be with these weapons and better protection, not on how he'll fuck up because he fucked up before when he didn't have weapons. If that makes me a Smith fan it also makes me a Jets fan.
As easy as it is to go to NFL.com (hell, I posted a link) to verify Smith's ACTUAL numbers that's as hard as it is for these Smith Haters to acknowledge the limited success he's had. To them, he's never won a game, never completed a pass, and has been doing so for 15 years with the 1992 Cowboys OL, the 1998 Rams WRs, the 1975 Pittsburgh Steel Curtain defense, and Billy White Shoes Johnson returning punts. But, I bet they don't believe that the world is round either.
Geno's career completion percentage, turnover percentage, TD:INT, Y/A, and almost every other basic and advanced stat paint a very ugly picture. The only effective statistical arguments that you can make in favor of him are his numbers in the presence and absence of certain players, which you were starting to do in the latter half of your debate when you brought up Harvin. I think his numbers in the presence and absence of Brian Winters might also be a pretty drastic split and a decent argument (Brian Winters is a joke: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/12/07/jets-aboushi-improves-line/ ).
This is the correct comparison between Fitzpatrick and Smith, not Fitz the veteran against Geno the 2nd year QB.
If the arguments against Smith were based primarily on statistics I would agree. But they aren't. They are mostly based on memories: he had three picks and was benched, the Jets lost 12 games last year, "he's been ranked the worst..." These are the arguments I've attempted to refute using the available numbers I've researched. It's not a completely valid assessment, but at least I can state with certainty that the numbers I've posted, unlike some who just make shit up, are valid. The conclusions I've drawn are my own opinions, but they seem to be shared by an increasing number of experts, who probably do include ACTUAL statistics in their opinions and not fabrications based solely on the pathetic need to "win" an argument or diss a player or team (Mark Schlereth for example).
Ryan leaf started his career in 98, more then 15 years ago. same with browning nagle. i can not comment on "any number of QBs" as that is extremely vague. the past 15 years, mark sanchez is the only other QB to start at least 20 games and have a QB rating in their first 2 seasons as low or lower then geno. im not sure what opinion has to do with that fact. nothing ingnorant about, the stats are the stats.
he plays awful more often then not. im not sure what part of that you cant grasp, but it is pretty clear. playing a few good games doesnt undo playing alot of terrible ones.
What exactly is the argument? that one day geno could become as mediocure and underwhelming as fitzpatrick is today?
What stats are you going on that dont indicate smith is among the worst starters in football? last in QB rating in '13. 29th in qb rating in '14. 31st in Ints per attempt in '13 27th in Ints per attemp in '14 28th in TD passes in '13 26th in TD passes in '14 29th in yards per attemp in '13 last in yards per attempt in '14 how exactly are the stats not showing he is awful? he is near the worst or worst in basically everything 2 years running.
