Should these QB's have been given up on, too?

[mz.]

Before all the tards call me a Quinn Fag...

[warning]I AM NOT INSINUATING THAT BRADY QUINN IS ANY GOOD, OR WILL EVER BE GOOD IN THE FUTURE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH QB WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.[/warning]

OK. Now that we've gotten that over with, twelve games isn't NEAR enough to gauge ANY (repeat: ANY. Not Quinn. Or ANYONE. Read that again if it's confusing) QB's future success. Or twenty, IMO. I'm sorry. Because, if it were, these guys have never been given an opportunity to improve/prove themselves. Take these three unsuccessful QB's stats, for instance:

1) This stiff's first 19 games: 267/501 53.2% 3217 yards, 11 TD, 21 INT

2) This clown's first 12 games: 106/216, 49.1%, 948 yards, 8 TD, 7 INT

3) This loser's first 9 games: 95/197, 48.2%, 1043 yards, 6 TD, 9 INT

Those guys all had pretty shit stats to start off their careers. With me so far? Those guys and their crap stats were destined for nothing. Nada. Zilch. They should have been cut and replaced with someone new. Obviously. Because, you know...they got their chances and blew them. Time to move on, right?

For comparison's sake, here are Brady Quinn's first 12 games: 184/353 53.1% 1902 yards, 10 TD 9 INT
.
--scroll down--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The stiff turned out to be this guy:





The clown turned out to be this guy:





and the loser turned out to be this guy:

[Inspecta]

Preaching to the choir here fella.

I don't know how many times we have to say that we are in no way guaranteeing that Quinn will be great, but 12 games is NOT, I repeat NOT enough time to make that determination.

With the lack of viable replacement options I don't see how we can go in any other direction.

[Fooleeze]

AMEN!!!

[mz.]

I realize you already use logic (well, more often than not), 'spec. This is another way of putting it for my friends here who do not. You know, for the thickheaded.

[JewDago]

i was going to start talking about how much eli manning sucks and how he shouldn't ever be included on any list of good QBs, and, in looking to do so, i wanted to make sure i wasn't wrong, which i most definitely was. his stats from the past year: 62.5 completion %, 7.9 YPA, over 4,000 yards, 27 TDs and only 10 INTs. great numbers.

let's also not forget that he's had six years and has shown steady improvement over all of them. QBs, like any other player, take time to develop. i suppose the question to ask, then, is how long any player should be allowed to repeatedly fail before it's safe to assume that he doesn't have it?

[ramrod]

Originally Posted by mz.

I realize you already use logic (well, more often than not), 'spec. This is another way of putting it for my friends here who do not. You know, for the thickheaded.

uh uh uh thats me, thickheaded. I still dont think that you get the point. The difference with all those guys is even though there stats werent the best they still showed signs of being great. Quinn hasnt even came close to showing signs of being a good one. Get it?????? Ok, good. Next topic.

[Inspecta]

And boy are they thick, and extremely short sighted. These guys if they had their way would burn through a new QB every year if they could. They want HOF caliber play right off the bat, and if it's not there, well then they must suck and we have to find a new QB.

We need to have a QB go through OTA's, training camp, and preseason as the unquestioned starter getting all the reps. Also let's have a QB that's been in the same system for more than a week or so.

It's just common sense. Add to the fact that there are no FA QB's or any in the draft that scream immediate upgrade, I don't know why on earth we'd go breaking the bank for yet another QB when we have so many other holes to fill (that's what she said).

[PB&J]

How about these three guys and their first years of getting starts:

Guy One First year, 15 Games, 6 starts: 127/235 54% 1465 yards 8TD 10INT

Guy 2 Second year, starts 6-18: 252/393 64.1% 2,454 yards 10 TD 17 INT

Guy 3, 22 Games: 215/461 46.6% 2212 yards, 5 TD 13 INT








Guy one happens to be:

Cade Mcnown, BUST

Guy two:

Charlie Frye! It isn't fair to judge him though, his line was terrible and he had no playmakers around him (Reuben Droughns, Braylon Stonehands and Dennis Dropcutt?)

And Guy three:

Akili Smith. At least we chose Couch over him.


My point? I think the "minimum starts" thing is stupid and arbitrary. Some guys have crappy stats when they start out, but show things like accuracy and timing. Other guys put up bad stats, and look like shit while doing it. You give the first guy more starts because he shows promise, he hits receivers in stride and shows a clear upward progression. You don't give the second guy the same opportunity because he just doesn't have it and to keep hoping that he miraculously develops NFL quarterback skills is flogging a deceased equine. Move on already.

[ramrod]

Originally Posted by Inspecta

And boy are they thick, and extremely short sighted. These guys if they had their way would burn through a new QB every year if they could. They want HOF caliber play right off the bat, and if it's not there, well then they must suck and we have to find a new QB.

Jesus Christ............ You are dumb and funny all at the same time.

[ramrod]

Originally Posted by PB&J

How about these three guys and their first years of getting starts:

Guy One First year, 15 Games, 6 starts: 127/235 54% 1465 yards 8TD 10INT

Guy 2 Second year, starts 6-18: 252/393 64.1% 2,454 yards 10 TD 17 INT

Guy 3, 22 Games: 215/461 46.6% 2212 yards, 5 TD 13 INT








Guy one happens to be:

Cade Mcnown, BUST

Guy two:

Charlie Frye! It isn't fair to judge him though, his line was terrible and he had no playmakers around him (Reuben Droughns, Braylon Stonehands and Dennis Dropcutt?)

And Guy three:

Akili Smith. At least we chose Couch over him.


My point? I think the "minimum starts" thing is stupid and arbitrary. Some guys have crappy stats when they start out, but show things like accuracy and timing. Other guys put up bad stats, and look like shit while doing it. You give the first guy more starts because he shows promise, he hits receivers in stride and shows a clear upward progression. You don't give the second guy the same opportunity because he just doesn't have it and to keep hoping that he miraculously develops NFL quarterback skills is flogging a deceased equine. Move on already.

No no no PB&J. It only works their way. Dont use shit like this, they will not have it.

[Inspecta]

Originally Posted by ramrod

uh uh uh thats me, thickheaded. I still dont think that you get the point. The difference with all those guys is even though there stats werent the best they still showed signs of being great. Quinn hasnt even came close to showing signs of being a good one. Get it?????? Ok, good. Next topic.

What are these "signs" you keep referring to?

Please ramrod, for the love of God, get out of the QB evaluation business. Quinn made some really nice plays this year, and had a couple of good games. Considering how fucked up the team was on the offensive side of the ball, that should be something to be commended.

Yeah he threw some horrible long balls that sailed out of bounds, but then again when Steve young played for the Bucs......now pay attention.....HE DID THE SAME DAMN THING!! SHOCKING I KNOW!!

12 games, no matter how you want to slice it, no matter how shitty you want to say he looked is NOT enough time to make a final evaluation. It just isn't.

Now I know you'll wanna come back with some gay innuendo on how we just like Quinn for his dashing good looks, but bottom line is there is not one QB in the draft who can come in and do a better job than Quinn at this present moment, and not one FA QB worth trading picks for to bring in.

If we give Quinn the full off season of reps, and he plays next year and regresses significantly then I will be right on board with wanting to go in another direction. But after 12 starts, (not even consecutive) I don't know how you can close the book on a QB like Quinn. It would be different if Quinn was out partying, or goofing off. This kid is hands down one of the hardest working QB's in all of football. For somebody who has that type of work ethic and commitment to being a better player you can't ask for anything more.

[mz.]

Originally Posted by ramrod

uh uh uh thats me, thickheaded. I still dont think that you get the point. The difference with all those guys is even though there stats werent the best they still showed signs of being great. Quinn hasnt even came close to showing signs of being a good one. Get it?????? Ok, good. Next topic.

Nobody has your balls in a vice, ram, making you enter these threads. You do so on your own.

That being said, the part of your statement in bold is hindsight, and I can prove it. The Bucs GOT RID OF YOUNG, they obviously didn't think he was destined for greatness.

And if Quinn turns out to be Smith, Frye or McNown, PB&J, so be it. I'm not saying he isn't, but what I'm saying is it isn't a forgone conclusion, statistically-based.

Originally Posted by PB&J

My point? I think the "minimum starts" thing is stupid and arbitrary. Some guys have crappy stats when they start out, but show things like accuracy and timing.

Where is the accuracy (operationally defined by completion percentage) any different for Young, McNabb, Manning or Quinn? In fact, Quinn's completion % (ACCURACY) was greater than Mcnabb's or Manning's.