can someone post a thread with videos of all of chads great runs for td's san diego 02 buffalo 02 miami 07 and any others i have missed
I merely responded to your asserting that Chad was never hurt at Marshall. Please don't change the subject to discredit me.
People are trying to say we cannot beat better teams with Chad, but the truth is we have beat better teams with Chad at QB. And we would win more of those if we were a better TEAM. I know it is a hard idea for some to grasp, but it is what it is.
Green Bay was 12-4 in 2002, San Diego was 12-4 in 2004, Indianapolis was 10-6 in 2002, Tennessee was 12-4 in 2003, and New England was 12-4 last year. As a group those don't look like lower echelon teams to me. Also, Indianapolis and SD were only early exit because the Jets beat them in the playoffs. So to say that he has beaten only one higher quality football team in his career is not entirely accurate IMHO.
None of the teams, except New England, made their respective conference Championship game.... Additionally, San Diego was a wild card team, as as was Tennessee..... Look at the numbers.... 6-15 vs playoff teams for his career.... 6-15..... I made that post just to prove the point that we DO NOT beat the best teams with Chad as our QB..... EDIT: and BTW, I said they were the lower PLAYOFF teams, obviously not in the NFL, that's not the point I was trying to make...
Not only that, but those numbers also include 5 losses to the eventual SB champ, 2 losses to the AFC rep in the SB, and 2 to a team that went 15-1 in the regular season. Of those 9 games, 3 were at home. The only blowouts were against New England (twice, including playoffs) and Oakland in the playoffs in 2002. Other than that, we were competitive in every game. Most of those games were under Herm and Hackett, notoriously conservative against quality teams.
Did you just completely breeze over the big post about Chad's 6-15 career record as a starter against playoff teams? In his career as a starter, Chad has beaten 1 (one) team that went on to win their division (New England last season)... The the NFL formatted the way it is, every year, if you do not win your own division, you play a minimum of 3 (three) teams that go on to win their division.... And in his collective starts since 2002, Chad's beaten one of them.... All the blind optimists like to say that all he does is win.... Well isn't this a startling group of numbers for that group...
Competitive doesn't win football games... And like abysmul said before, these teams go on to great things because they BEAT THE GOOD TEAMS.... Under Chad, we haven't.. If we had, maybe we would have been the AFC rep in the Super Bowl, the 15-1 team, etc....
I appreciate the reply. I can understand your position a bit better now, and I definitely see where you're coming from. As I said before, we both agree that the future of this team rests in Kellen's hands. We just differ on our opinion of the current situation. I can't say that I agree that the situation is analogous to 2002. Vinny's play was downright terrible in the first three games, his numbers decent against Baltimore only because of that Hail Mary to Marcus Coleman to end the first half. Were it not for the two special teams TDs, we lose that game. It was clear from the start that Vinny wasn't going to lead this team. Chad, however, was the lone bright spot in a game in which NE absolutely throttled us on both sides of the ball. He didn't play poorly to lose the job, although I agree he doesn't make me think we'll win a SB with him as the quarterback. I also disagree that injury is the ideal situation for a QB change. The ideal situation would be either a drop in play for Chad or a trade at the end of the season. Chad won the team over last season, and several players still comment that he's the leader of the team. I asked my brother in law (a 12 year NFL vet) last week what would happen if Chad had been pulled after his NE performance. He simply said it wouldn't be a fun locker room to be in and that his teammates would remember the first 3 quarters just as well. As far as the other point goes, the issue of 2002 and 2004 is really a chicken/egg argument. Did Herm and Hackett play not to lose because Chad was the QB, or did Chad play conservatively because he played according to the gameplan? I agree that Chad is not the QB of the future, and we won't win a SB with him. I simply like the idea of him starting long enough for Kellen to work in the whole playbook in practice with the 1st team. There's no point in sacrificing the development of the other offensive players to build up your QB right now. Put more pieces in place, bring Kellen in when Chad falters or in '08, and hope for the best
And I would argue that those other teams had either better personnel, better coaching, or both. Yes, Chad falls under the category of personnel, but you can't consider him the sole reason for the team's inability to get over the hump. In 2002, you can throw Chad under the bus. He played in Oakland like a first year starter and was terrible. After that, though? His numbers in 2004 were almost identical to Big Ben. He did what the coaching staff asked him to do. If we push to gain 10 more yards on our final drive, we're in the AFC Championship in 2004. Against the Pats last year? He throws for more yards than Tom Brady and gets zero help from the running game. We're killed on that backwards pass, and Chad throws the pick 6 when he has to pass on every down because of the score and the lack of running game. Remember, Peyton Manning couldn't win the big game either until he had a loaded team around him and a good coach.
Originally Posted by johnny Green Bay was 12-4 in 2002, San Diego was 12-4 in 2004, Indianapolis was 10-6 in 2002, Tennessee was 12-4 in 2003, and New England was 12-4 last year. As a group those don't look like lower echelon teams to me. Also, Indianapolis and SD were only early exit because the Jets beat them in the playoffs. So to say that he has beaten only one higher quality football team in his career is not entirely accurate IMHO. Actually, SD in 2004 won there division. Also, when I said lower echelon teams I mean lower echelon playoff teams. Four 12-4 teams and one 10-6 team are pretty solid playoff teams in my book. Most QB's not named Manning and Brady over the last five years will have bad records vs. playoff teams. Is Chad the best of the rest? Perhaps not, but even Carson Palmer is 6-11 in his tenure against playoff teams.
hmy: :lol: :beer: LOL. I thought Chad kinda floated in his pre spike jump....AKWARDLY! More classic goof from a guy that enjoys the game.
And as I said... if we had a better TEAM our numbers versus better teams would be much improved over what it is. Why is that so hard for you to understand? All Chad does is win.... he helps us beat the teams we should, and keeps us in games that are above us,but as I have said a hundred times he's not a QB that is going to carry an entire team. Hell, you could have had the NFL's all-time greatest QB in week one, in his prime, and we would have lost that game. But, if we played a lot better defense and the OL was more solid then that game is closer than it was, maybe even a win.
Don't you know logic plays no part in discussions on this board. People always twist shit to try and make their weak points. With all the problems this team has people are worrying about a QB that wins games... oh yeah I forgot a win means nothing according to some people, you magically appear at the SB one day.
