WhitewalkerInPhilly

12/13, 9+ yards per attempt, a 20 yard run for a touchdown...I'll take that all day long.

More reasons: -It'll be because he don't do it against the starters, who will somehow magically come in the second Cassel takes the field, thus explaining Cassel looking Meh. -Pittsburgh will be attempting a novel 7-7 drill concept, but they failed to tell the Bills, who will have 11...but the success will be mitigated when the Bills are called for having too many men on the field, the refs having assumed that 7 was the right number somehow. If EJ comes out and realy sh*ts the bed, I can't think of any. It's the third preseason game of his third year. I've been defending him for a long while and he's no longer our only hope, he's finally with the OC I one said "is the only one who can salvage him", the O-line starters have looked decent, and Woods and Freddy, the two players he's most comfortable with will be back. If this truly is the end of the experiment, I think I'll finally accept it.

So, like his QB play?

If he gets injured, maybe. But of all of the money they have set for him in 2016, not a dime is guaranteed, and they would have zero dead money cutting him. If they really are going to bench him, I'm pretty sure he gets cut the second the league year is over. If they do...honestly, I think it would be worth taking a sniff. Gruden is trying to make RGIII a traditional drop back passer, and he's doing it with O-line play that makes ours last year look incredible. He definitely has talent. We saw it his rookie year, and then his coaching staff bungled it every resulting step of the way. Maybe the damage is too extreme to be recovered. But when our options look like ours right now, I'd pay Orton money to take a shot.

Easy answer: Perhaps he wins the starting job.

That is hilarious.

Wow, I take a couple hours off this board and this shoots to 22 pages...

Honestly, I'd rather he sink or swim in two games we're mostly favored to lose and then go with the conservative option and wonder all year. But if you actually read the article, it puts a lot of misconceptions to bed.

A) So, you're more convincing with your "Well, he had twice as many TD's to INT and passes my eye test" argument? You know who else had that argument? Derek Carr, and I'm not calling him elite. B) It's not one statistic. Yours neglects that there are a lot of bad QBs, a decent crop on third tier guys (the Tannehill, Flacco, Daltons, alex Smith and Cutlers) who you can go far with but need a strong supporting cast, the guys who need help but put on a good show year after year (Big Ben, early Rivers, Romo) and the truly elite who can drag a limping franchise deep in the playoffs (Brady, Peyton and Rodgers) It is the plurality of the stats that informs me. Despite passing far more than running, and with an at least decent group of receivers they didn't crack top ten in total yards. When you factor in that they passed far more than they ran, and the low YPA and the fact that they had players like Wallace, Hartline, Gibson and Ckay who get YAC plus a 66% accuracy rating, that sounds like overinflation of stats due to a West Coast offense using short high percentage throws. If that sounds familiar, it's what the plan of attack is if Matt Cassel is our starter and what Roman did for Smith. And there is nothing wrong with doing that. But no one, and I mean no one, is mistaking either of those two for an elite QB, never mind someone you're paying more than Brady or Manning.

Fine, if YPA of an individual QB is a stat that is "myopic" by itself, let's have some more: 11th in team passer rating, 17th in yards per game, 16th in ESPN's QBR. Everything about that to me screams "slightly above average". And yet the prevailing wisdom on this thread is that it's not at all surprising or somehow confusing to overpay one at the expense of at the expense of the 52 others.

And Mario isn't a difference maker on every play? I'm not saying there isn't a difference. But let's not pretend that A) Ryan Tannehill is anywhere near the best of his position, or ever has been and B) the presence of an above average QB, or even a very good QB is a guarantee of success. I consider Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan and Drew Brees to be good to very good quarterbacks, and each was on a losing team last year. I would take one pf them over Tammy in a heartbeat. The other 52 players matter.

Pardon me while a list a few QBs who had better, or as good as, Yards gained per passing attempt: Brian Hoyer. Geno Smith. Mark Sanchez. Austin Davis. Drew Stanton. Kirk Cousins. Mike Glennon. Shaun Hill. You know who was right behind? At a whopping 6.8 YPA to Tannehill's 6.9 was the Uncle Rico impersonator himself, Kyle Orton.

Yeah. If Tannehill signed an extension for 4 years at 19.6 M a year after his rookie option year, I can't imagine what Luck's will be. Considering the franchise tag is 18.5... It seems now that you either get lucky when drafting, or you build around a subpar QB like the Cards did.

I agree with you. And I like to think that we're seeing the onset of change there by having a few teams succeed using a system rather than a star QB. Chip Kelly, for all my doubts of him as a GM, achieved a lot of success with a beaten down Vick (who looked dreadful after he left for the Jets), Foles (who has not looked good this preseason, and Sanchez (who is a known quantity). Harbaugh and Roman gave the Niners a great run, and that team looks to be imploding now that they're gone. I'm hoping Rex and Roman can do the same thing here.

Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you. He had no chance on that play. EJ did everything he reasonably could: diagnosed the blitz, adjusted his protection assignments at the line...he just had a scrub who was supposed to pick up the blitz, and the result was predictable.

He kind of has a point though. Mario Williams, a 1st overall pick, multi year Pro Bowler, one of the best players at his position, signed a record setting deal at the time. He makes $16 a year on his contract as an average. He is a difference maker, even if he's not wracking up pretty stats every game. Ryan Tannehill is not, by pretty much every metric, an elite player at his position. His best effort was last year with a QB which placed him at 16th in the league in Total QBR. That is, for reference, worse than Mark Sanchez. For the next five years, he is making an average of $17.6 million a year. That's currently the going rate for slightly above average QB play. It's an unsustainable rate of growth and unless the salary cap also explodes it's going to lead to teams blowing their wads on journeymen like we did with Fitz and fielding scrubs at the other positions.

He also saw it coming on a sack, and tried to get Scrub Running Back C to block, but it ended badly.

Yeah college stats mean everything! Right Matt Barkley?

I don't root for injuries (except for one player in particular, if he happens to screw over punishment by pouting and suing) but the Cowgirls are already looking a lot weaker than last year. Let's hope they are by the next time we play them.

And of course, they can't say something nice without a backhand about millenials...

So, what you're saying is that if Taylor comes out and wins the starting job we get him incredibly cheap for only two years instead of three? Well, if he's the next Russell Wilson or Kaepernick, pay the man. If he's servicable, but not the long term answer, draft a rookie to take his place in 2017. If he sucks, we don't even have to worry about this conversation.

Maybe you can explain why, despite looking routinely improved, having nigh flawless last practices and showing he can pass from the pocket, people keep saying the smart money is for Cassel to start. "Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our starting QB: Meh Cassel. Why?" *shrugs*

Astro notes! YES MUST HAVE

I'm sorry, but if it hits your chest, you should catch it. Even if it's not perfect, that's what starters do in the NFL.

That is indeed troubling. I only saw a bunch on the field! Seriously though, what I've seen is good enough to do some damage.