Clemens didn't appear to be the savior fans were hoping for right off, and certainly looked suspect in many circumstances but that also doesn't mean he's definitely not the answer, either. As for QB ratings, here a gem it took me about 2 minutes to dig up as comparison of two other QBs on pretty poor teams in their first seasons as starters: G COMP ATT YDS TD INT R 11 123 259 1663 7 14 54.9 10 130 250 1529 5 10 60.9 11 155 293 1749 9 18 55.7 Two are hall of famers (modern age, unanimous) and one is KC. Just more proof that stats can be used to support nearly any argument. Jury is still out on KC but I think we owe him a full season.
Jim Plunkett in his second year starting had a rating of 45.7 8 TD and 25 INT's Doug Williams 52.5% rating in his second year Namath 62.6 Jim Hart 58.4 Aikman 66.6 Dawson before he was cut from the NFL 47.2 in his 6th year Bradshaw was in the high 30 his first year 59.7 his second Testeverde 48.8 in his second year Clemens 60.9 in his second year. I would call that good company. Clemens looked bad this year but it wasn't all bad. Chad looked great his first year starting which wasn't untill 25% through his third year in the league and he never came close again. Past performance has little to do with what Clemens will be. I have no issue taking a QB with our No. 1 pick if we believe he is going to be the guy? Or taking a development QB later and bringing in a good veteran to compete for a reasonable salary. Chad blew out his shoulder in 04 and the first QB we have drafted was Clemens in 06. He is the best we have at the moment. We probably should have drafted Quinn this past year after passing on Cutler last year but we didn't. It still doesn't make Chad at 4.8 Million dollars viable.
I can't compare Clemens to those guys with the flawed passer rating stat. More than half the guys you listed were rookies prior to the major rules changes of 1978, which dramatically altered the passing game.
My bad, forgot to add the two HOFers 1st season starting stats are for Aikman and Elway--OOPs I see Cakes has already beat me to it.
It's early to start worrying about this. Any of you old enough to remember Ken O'Brien, he came in at the end of the 1984 season and looked kind of like Clemens. Played well in spots but not great and we kept losing. But he learned the ropes pretty quickly and then from 1985 and most of the way through 1986 we had a 21-6 run before getting a lot of guys injured. Point being, you don't know this early if he can't be good. Usually if a guy is great or special you see it right away, but it doesn't mean he can't or won't be good. O'Brien turned out to be good, not great. We could have won with him if things broke right, they didn't.
You can have a feeling about Clemens one way or another, but I believe it is impossible to know definitively based on what we have seen to know he's a bust. For all we know he will bounce around for 8 years and suddenly emerge as a solid journeyman passer. You can't expect too much from a rookie playing with a team as poor as ours was this year.
Ken Obrien is a great example. He was actually a pretty good Qb. The problem is we need something that is special to win it during the Brady-Manning era. We need a special Defense, Rb or Qb that will make the difference if we are going to beat either of these teams now. Unfortunately mediocre will not get it done now. We need special players on both sides of the ball and from what I see we might have one maybe two one day in Harris and Rhodes. Teams win championships but in this era of Brady to Moss the thinking is going to have to be tweaked a bit.
It would be one thing if this was Clemens' first year, but he had a year and a half to sit on the bench to prepare for this. He wasn't thrown into the fire immediately and he still makes bad decisions. What does that have to do with the offensive line? Look at Buffalo's Trent Edwards stats: 1630 yards 7 tds 8 ints and hes a rookie. Thats alot better than Clemens 1:2 TD-INT ratio.
"QB rating" is a pet peeve of mine. The correct term is passer rating. The stat is only concerned with passing. It does not take into account other aspects of quarterback play such as rushing. If it did, the ratings for guys such as Roger Staubach, Michael Vick, and Steve Young would rise. Four stat categories determine passer rating- average yards gained per attempt completion percentage percentage of TD passes percentage of INTs Much like Al Bundy hoping he'd convince at least one person to not marry, I'd be happy if I could get just one person to stop referring to passer rating as "QB rating".
The guy played less then half a season. Eli Manning has been playing for 4 years now and still gets a break. It's ridiculous how you keep harping on Clemens when every jet fan knows that there are so many other areas that need improvement like, OL, DL, WR, OLB, CB, Punter... need I go on
Do these names ring a bell: Mark Jackson Vance Johnson Ricky Nattiel Sammy Winder These were Elways receivers and running back when he went to at least one Super Bowl. Let me tell you this, Elway is the only QB I have ever seen that could win with nothing around him. If the line stunk, he could scramble and with a flick of the wrist throw it 70 yards across the field. He single handedly carried the Broncos for years. Could he win a SB that way, no but he did get their. You can use Montana, Marino, or any other HOF QB's but don't mention Elway.
I always thought Elway did the most with the least of all those guys. The others all had one element, Marino had the release, Montana could scramble and make plays, but Elway could do it all. Like you said, he could buy his own time and hit anyone anywhere on the field. He could have won in those years, I thought they would beat Washington, they were beating the Giants at halftime.
Yeah, that's a pretty bad analogy, huh? People act like this year is all we have to go on for Chad, too. Like the previous 4 or 5 years suddenly aren't supposed to count or be brought up, or we've somehow been losing with Chad for all this time. Should have been around for Kotite, they wouldn't be bitching so much now.
It's the common defense mechanism of KC apologists "Stop criticizing KC, Chad sucks!!!!" Effortless change of the subject. Also, QB rating may be an imperfect and flawed stat but anytime a QB's name is mentioned in the same breath as Kordell Stewart or Ryan Leaf, you're in trouble. Comparisons to the QBs from the 1960s aren't relevant- its a LOT easier to be a good QB today.
Didn't Pennington play with the same horrible OL, defense, WRs etc that Clemens played with????? But Clemens gets a pass and Pennington gets put in the crapper. As for playing "tougher" teams, Pennington played NE twice, Buffalo twice, while Clemens played against defensive powerhouses like Cleveland and KC and couldn't move the team. When he played a very good team - Dallas - he was so completely overmatched that it was an embarrassment. You also cannot compare QB numbers from 15 years ago to today, let alone numbers from the 60's and 70's. The passing game today is completely different with all the rule changes and the development of controlled passing games. Completing less than 60% of passes today is unacceptable. Fifteen years ago that was an accomplishment. Throwing more interceptions than TDs is unacceptable while in the past it was the norm. You can make all the excuses you want, but Clemens was terrible, in the class of Leaf and Smith and Harrington terrible. His three wins had absolutely nothing to do with him, but were all because the defense played well. I don't care if you think Pennington is not the answer either, but the Jets better bring someone else in next year in case this pitiful play continues for Clemens.
