did we not just beat New England on Sunday or was that just an extremly gratifying dream? Because looking at this thread you really couldnt tell. I LOVE THAT WE HANDED THE PATS A BEATING ON SUNDAY! Talking about benching Chad is 100% ABUSRD at this point. We are having a winning season thus far. And we just took the number one team in our division behind the woodshed. THAT IS A FACT! I guess the Eagles should bench Mcnab too. I mean come on now they are 5/4 too!
The only "theory" I have is that sitting a QB for a year or two does not make or break the player. You've shown nothing but select(read:biased) anecdotal evidence. You consider Vick a success story because he conforms to your idea of sitting back and learning(he had 80 less pass attempts his first season then Eli did in his) and Manning a bust because he was "thrown into the fire". By ignoring my post and resorting to ad hominem attacks you've said alot more then you would've actually trying to defend your position.
Once again, I didn't overlook McNair...I included him with McNabb and Vick as guys who were slowly exposed over the course of the rookie years...check out my previous posts. As for Leftwich, I did leave him out (my mistake). He started 15 games as a rookie w/ a 73 rating...for his career he is 80.5. Better than both Carr and Manning. My point is not that I am opposed to starting Clemens. As I said in my initial post, game 10 against the Bears while in the playoff hunt is neither the time nor the place to start a rookie QB. If by week 16 or 17, the Jets are out of the playoffs, sure let him play a half or two. But don't throw the guy out there just to get killed. Put him in a position to succeed. We can make "qualitative" judgements about all these players, but the bottom line is that you have almost half the leagues starting QBs drafted after Rd 1...and for the most part they all sat and learned. Compare that to guys who were drafted much earlier and thrown to wolves, and the picture isn't so rosy...Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, etc, etc. IF the point is to put the Jets and Clemens in the best position to succeed, then Clemens is better served sitting on the bench in year 1.
Whoa, wait a sec. I was starting to respect your arguments until I read this one. Where have you provided a "fact." Well, unless you term "factual evidence" in the same way Champ does. You have posted your opinion of the play of QBs who fit into your reference periods. You think Eli isn't that good, but Vick is. I think you're incredibly wrong. Don't fire off at the mouth that someone else is using opinion when you have to do it yourself. Illustrate your facts, but make sure they are not subject to interpretation first. Example: Brett Favre did not play his first year, but is surely on his way to Canton. That's factual. Just his numbers alone guarantee his trip, and you would be correct that he saw something like part of 1 game with Atlanta in his rookie year. Example: Vick was brought along slowly and is now a great QB. That's not factual. He's got 84 TDs in his career, 21 of which were the result of him running with the football (that's not a QB, that's a RB.) He also has 48 INTs for his career. Now guy shouldn't be making any plans for Canton. You want to make arguments, make them fairly. Don't point fingers at someone else's to shift the fire away from yours.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not in favor of playing Clemems at this point, regardless of the outcome vs. Chicago. There is still plenty of football left in this year, and Penny gives us the best chance to win. I just disagree that throwing in a rookie is a bad thing.
An ad hominem attack is one that attacks the person as opposed to attacking that person's argument. Please provide the post were I have attacked you as a person. You of course cannot, because I have refrained from attacking you, but instead have attacked your arguments or lack thereof. You have tried to unsuccessfully re-frame the argument and now are unsuccessfully accusing me of personnel attacks. Of course you have not made any attempt to back up your argument with any factual evidence. The only thing left to you is to throw out the red herring that I "attacked you" in an attempt to discredit my arguments. Sorry, it won't work and you have demonstrated to everyone here what poor character you have by resorting to this.
U said he's throwing the ball like "he's wearing a skirt". I think that falls in the noodle-arm category. Hell, thats worse than calling him a noodle arm.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said Vick was "great" and I never said Eli was "bad". What I said was that the model used for exposing McNabb, McNair and Vick to the league in small doses was better than throwing someone directly into the fire. 3rd and 15 attempted to "re-frame" this argument into deteriming who was a good or bad QB. All I demonstrated with Carr and Eli, despite all the Eli lovers out there, is that statistically there isn't much difference in their performance. Eli, IMO, is still very inconsistent and Carr would have been better served sitting on the bench in year 1 as opposed to being sacked 60+ times. Also my "reference period" of going back to 1990, is just plain arbitrary. We could go back as far or near as we want and the same results were bear out. Bottom line is that I don't have an NFL statistical staff on call to do all this work. But at least I have made an attempt to defend my point of view as opposed to the unsubstantiated blustering that goes on around here (that is not directed at you, just a general statement).
Are we playing this game now? In that case, your arguments have the intelligence of a mongoloid. I hope your arguments die in a fire. Your arguments probably have a small penis as well. With that out of the way, let me try to break it down in a way so that even your arguments can understand. You claim to be providing facts when in truth you're merely giving your personal opinion of a few QBs. The criteria you use for determining whether a QB sits back and learns as opposed to playing right away is very much in question. Fact is, Vick attempted 18 passes in week 4 of his rookie year. Eli threw 9 passes in Week 1 and then didn't see action again until week 11. So what exactly is so different about these guys development that you would classify them differently? This is a question you need to answer before anyone can take anything else you say or have said in this topic seriously.
Well you did say in post #53 that "HOWEVER, something is wrong with him physically". http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=352312&postcount=53 But let's not let facts get in the way, I'm enjoying this argument. :smile:
Are you now going home and taking your football with you? Seriously, you make an allegation that I attacked you personally. I asked you to demonstrate where I did...knowing full well you cannot prove what you said. Than you respond with this. I guess it is game, set and match to me. Thanks for proving my point!
Just because it's amusing to me to keep burying you with facts while you ignore every point I make: McNabb took over as ther starter his rookie year almost the exact same time as Eli Manning did and actually attempted 19 more passes his rookie year.
You tried to re-frame the argument after it was apparant you could not provide any factual information to back-up your position. You tried to accuse me of ad hominem attacks which did not occur and you cannot demonstrate. Now you want to talk football again? I think not. I tried to have a nice factual debate until you decided to go kindergarden on me... You need to do some growing up. Unfortunately it is this type of boorish behavior that is bringing this website into the gutter.
I'll give credit where it's due, this was a solid troll, you actually had me caring about the argument. I suppose at this point it's gone as far as it can go though.
I really wish I hadn't been posting during photojournalism so I could have continued this conversation. I didn't say you think it's mediocrity and that is my point. I think it's mediocrity because we're 5-4, his TD:INT ratio is 10:9, and 192 yards passing per game. If you think that is anything past mediocrity, you're nuts. Yes, it is more than expected. Yes, I think it's better than what Clemens or Ramsey could do. No, I don't want either to start. My point is that Pennington is hailed as a golden god here and he is nothing more than a mediocre veteran.
If you look no further than numbers and expect Peyton Manning numbers every game, then it's mediocre. If you actually watch the games and see what goes on, you can see that Pennington has been a team leader and the Jets would be a lot worse off without him. If you don't believe that, I suggest you watch some 2005 Jet game tapes. I'll take yesterday's stats and results over a 350 yard game and a loss any day of the week.
And that is you going no further than the first line of my post. If you actually read it, you'd see that I said he should be starting. And yes, I do watch the games. I see him make horrible decisions that teams somehow don't take advantage of.
I read your whole post, but you're basing it all on numbers. Every QB in the course of a game makes mistakes that the other team sometimes takes advantage of and sometimes doesn't. I just think people get too wrapped up in stats, especially in football, there's too many variables. There's nothing mediocre about how Chad manages a very young offense and runs the game. He's had two bad games, it happens, but he's not a mediocre QB.
