Thurman#1

That's hilarious. Nice find.

By no means is it over 10%. Allen threw 461 passes and though there are several different sites counting drops, none of them list the drops as high as 10% of that. If you go by Stats, the most common one used, it puts the drops at 26, which is far below 10%. And the NFL average is about 18. So that's about 8 more than average. Take eight off Allen's stats and he still ranks in the late 30s in terms of completion percentage. This is not a particularly significant factor. It raises his completion percentage about one and a half percent. Lombardi was right in his main idea. But "a huge hole" is a wild exaggeration. He shouldn't have used that phrase. And there have absolutely been guys who improved their accuracy, particularly early in their careers, guys like Rodgers, Favre and Brady being a few examples. And Allen's another example, having gotten better at accuracy between his first and second years by most measures and in most opinions.

Wow. Call TMZ.

The most successful coach of the modern era, Bill Belichick, comes from a defensive background. Agreed that solid defensive teams with an average or slightly below offense don't consistently succeed these days. Thing is, you also say the opposite. If either side of the ball is average or slightly below, you're not going to consistently succeed. The reason more than 20 teams have hired offensive minded HCs is more about group-think and the way NFL trends move in cycles than anything else. And the new hirings this year seem to show that trend slowing. And if anything "needs to be scrutinized" about this regime, it's that they seem to be doing an absolutely terrific job so far.

Nicely put, and very true. It certainly wasn't "pure" luck. They won 9 games. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have made the playoffs. Yes, some luck was involved, no doubt about that, but by no means was it pure.

Losing when you win the turnover battle isn't the indicator of a too conservative offense. It can mean a bunch of different things ... poor defense, poor offense, bad luck, too may penalties and on and on. But if it does come down to the offense it's not so much about a too conservative offense as it is an unsuccessful offense. And plenty of teams beat elite teams by running when they have the lead and the ball late in the game. You just have to do it successfully and probably have the rest of your team stand up as well. He's a bit conservative for me too, but was that about belief in the defense, no faith in the pass game, was it a career-long hallmark or was it due to his belief about what he had to do with that particular team in those particular circumstances? We don't know yet.

Nice.

Germany has strong borders? Please. And yes, their combined populations are less than half that of the USA. But the USA has about 4.2% of the world's population and 26% of the world's coronavirus cases. The fact that we're doing worse than nearly anyone else at stopping this thing is not due to our population numbers. Nor is it due to our borders being more open that countries like Germany's, which they are not. Oh, and as for Germany's "spiking in cases," Their highs for new cases were back in late March and early April, around 5K - 6K per day. They're now closer to 10% of that. Those "spikes" brought the infection rate up to 50 new infections per 100,000 people. How does that relate to the US rate? There are many contributing factors, but probably the single biggest one was slow and poor reactions right at the beginning, which is the most crucial time in a pandemic. We needed to listen to the scientists and doctors. We didn't. Bad decisions were made, and they were not restricted to one side of the political map.

Lee Smith had 329 offensive snaps, 30.2%. Google Football Outsiders snap counts

I greatly disagree, Shaw. You say he doesn't have a coherent theory, but he does. It's just that either it's not one that you want to hear. The problem is that his problems aren't a one-step fix. That doesn't mean it's not a coherent theory. Theories can be coherent but still talk about a problem having more than one component contributing to a problem. People often want to hear that whatever fix for whatever problem you have should be simple and not multi-phasic. Sometimes that's realistic. More often it's not, particularly as a system which has a problem often develops further problems in an attempt to compensate for the effects of the first problem. He's got mechanics problems. Nobody who has known what he's talking about has ever said different about Allen. Including Allen himself, Dorsey, Jordan Palmer ... everyone. You say he's not a rebuilding project and that's right, he's not rebuilding something he had. But he's absolutely a project. Has been since day one. And he's progressing. He's working the process. It's interesting to see what the details that he's working on are. And yeah, guys work with Rodgers and Brady on mechanics. It's a great example, but misses the point that both Brady and Rodgers took a long time to get where they could be what they are now. Both of them had a year (Rodgers a lot more) when they could focus on long-term improvement in things like grooving their mechanics, something Allen needed even more than those two did as youngsters, and yet he didn't get the time. Yeah, those guys still work on mechanics, but at this point it's offseason tweaks on the smaller problems that crop up during the season when they don't have time to work on mechanics. Every pro athlete goes back to basics in the offseason. What Allen has to do goes far beyond that. And what McCarthy did to Rodgers in terms of mechanics absolutely did. You can look at his preseasons early and he wasn't early what he's become. He made massive progress before he saw significant NFL regular season experience, particularly in what McCarthy called his "Quarterback Camp," and you can follow it through Rodgers' preseasons. -------------------------- The MMQB: "You documented how fortunate it was that Aaron Rodgers didn’t have to play the first couple of years—he just wasn’t ready." McGinn: “He was a very poor player here for his first two summers and regular-season practices. Fortunately for him, and he knows that down deep, he didn’t have to play early. His delivery was a mess, bad body language, he didn’t know how to deal with teammates. He learned so much from Brett Favre on how to in some ways be one of the guys and relate, and he became much more of a leader. He was really poor and how many great players have ever had a start like that? Not that many. A lot of scouts look at that exhibition tape those first two years and he was a little bit better the third year, but not to any degree, and then he just really developed. He lost a lot of close games in ’08, but by ’09 he was playing great and by 2010 he was maybe the best in the business. " https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/13/themmqb-exit-interview-bob-mcginn-green-bay-packers-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-nfl-beat-writer -------------------------- And yeah, Allen has to work more on decision-making. Sure. But his passing problems are real. His long-ball problems last year are a perfect example. Those weren't decision problems. They were great decisions and very bad passes. It's not reasonable to say he's one of the best throwers in the league. He's not. One of the most powerful? Absolutely. One of the best on some of his throws? Yup. But consistently one of the best throwers? He just isn't. He'll thread a gorgeous needle one down and then the next throw three feet over his receiver's head. He's good ... inconsistently, and it sure looks like a very significant amount of that is due to his mechanics problems and inconsistency. Do you get coaches telling kids, "Do it like Josh Allen does. Watch film and do it like that"? No, you don't, and for the obvious reasons. I love the way he improved. He definitely improved in throwing consistency between his first and second year. But he still has a way to go.

Yeah, disappointing when the first sentence goes so far off course in terms of hyperbole and garbage. Much better when they get all the way to the second sentence before the nonsense starts, as you did.

Pure guesswork. Either way. As with most predictions of the future in near infinitely complicated systems, it could go either way. It's boring but the right response ... we'll see. They might. Losses so far due to the lockdown are far far in excess of 15 billion. Benefits are tens of thousands of lives saved. Again, they might. Or not. There is an absolute ton of evidence for your position. And just as much suggests the opposite.

I think many fans here don't like 'em, but me, I hate the Fins and Pats, Pittsburgh and the Cowboys. The Jets are way below those four. People here often talk about tiers ... and it makes sense here. For me those are the top tier, and the Jets are on a second tier with a bunch of other teams.

Yup, too early. But all predictions are too early, really. And very very pessimistic, IMO.

yeah, the big act of defiance will be to not watch the preseason games they wouldn't have watched anyway.

That may have been a question four years ago or whenever he last played. A bit of one anyway. It's not now. He'll have to compete. He'll be aware of that.

Yup. good point. We're all getting upset about guys he's saying aren't even in the top 32. Fair enough, really. But he does this yearly, makes this top 40 list. It's what he likes, diving deep on QBs. And so he has to try to fit people in based on the information he's got.

These are your best arguments? Again, you're not going back to his real argument. You're the one who asked, and now you found a fragment and act like it holds his main arguments. It doesn't. Then you find another fragment that's about Taysom Hill but not about whether he's a top 40 guy? "Bridgewater made a fool out of Simms ... yet Simms is doubling down a year later with the same nonsense"? Just not true. On your barely connected clip there he talks about not trusting Bridgewater, where did he say in the recent stuff the same things about Bridgewater? He didn't. Where is Bridgewater ranked? You're making these bizarre arguments. Simms said, again in your fragment, "The big thing I saw especially during the season a little this past season, and then especially last preseason." And that little thing gets you all upset? It's a nothing, and you have to cut out the words right after to get upset at all. He says, everywhere, that he wants to see more, can't put him higher till he does. You act like Simms said he'd showed growth - in the pass game - during the season, but he didn't say that, You're so desperate to make your argument that you're saying stuff you can't possibly know. "Florio gave him all the time he wanted," you say. Really? You were in the studio? Nobody was in his ear or in front of him giving him the hurry up sign? Nobody had said, "We've only got two minutes, so be quick here?" They didn't tell him they wanted to talk about something else before break? You know this? Nonsense. He might have gotten all the time he wanted and he might not have. The fact that you felt you had to throw this in despite having no clue is of a piece with most of the rest of your post. Going off target talking about Bridgewater, getting upset about one little phrase. "Other than that he says the guy throws hard," you say, but again even in your little fragment he gives a bunch more substance about what he's seen in terms of improvements in making progressions and reading the field. If there's nothing there to get angry about, you're making stuff up. You are trying to stick with this fragment because you wanna make your point with as little work as possible. And again, even the fragment there is very reasonable. You have to stretch and bob and weave, and your whole thing with the adjectives and adverbs, "he goes on endlessly". Endlessly, for you, is four seconds? Really? Dude, again, you're showing more about yourself than about him. "... eyes darting weirdly." "... literally babbles." You've got a major case of confirmation bias going on here. You don't like Simms. Fine, whatever. You disagree with is opinion. Fine, whatever. But your takes are getting wacky and off-target with Bridgewater. Honestly, I've had enough of this. You won't even go and look at his main argument. You're throwing irrelevant stuff in here, it's not worth my time. I generally find you a good poster, I'm not clear on whatever has you so upset here. Whatever it is, it's not holding my interest and the conversation just isn't working well. I'm pretty sure you can agree with me that much. See you on the boards.

And again, Simms is NOT saying Tua will not be the better QB. He's saying that if he were a coach today who was on the hot seat right now and needs a guy to play right now this year, a guy he can trust to save his job, who would he want, Stidham after a year being coached up by the Patriots or Tua as a rookie?

OK, first, no, that is not what he said originally when he expressed fully what he felt. This is a short response to Florio. To get what he said you have to go back to the podcast where he listed Dude, your wacky response about babbling and weirdly darting says a lot more about your than him. He watched plays to think some thoughts, and you find that really weird and idiotic? Yeah, again, that says more about you than him. As for what he says here, responding to Florio, for those interested, here's what was said: Florio: "I’ve seen enough of Taysom Hill as an all-around weapon. He strikes fear in the heart of the defense. He was the best player on the field in the wild card game between Minnesota and New Orleans. If they had used him just a little bit more, the Saints would have won that game. That’s why I’m a believer in Taysom Hill. I’ve seen enough flashes of him to know he can be a man among boys, and we’ve seen it from time to time and that’s why I think he’s going to more than justify that placement once he gets a chance to play quarterback on a regular basis, especially with Sean Payton designing the plays, dialing up the easy completions, devising the offense that fits his skillset, Chris." Simms: "Sure. Yeah, you said it, Sean Payton one of the most creative offensive minds we’ve ever seen in the NFL. He’s going to have plays that use Taysom Hill’s strengths to the utmost, and he’s going to really accentuate that. So, Mike, I hear what you’re saying. I know you think he should be higher than 36. You know, I’m glad to hear you say that. Most people when they hear this on social media, it’s the opposite. ‘How could you have a guy at 36 who hasn’t thrown a regular season touchdown pass?’ Those type of reactions. I understand. But I think you and I both see the big potential here and we’ve seen growth at the quarterback position too. "Now, I couldn’t make him any higher. Really, I couldn’t because it still is really a bit of an unproven commodity. And hey, when you do get to come in on a special ‘dial it up, Sean Payton had this play in his back pocket for a week now,’ ... that can make life easier on a quarterback. I need to see some more reps and meat and potatoes. But the things I like and what I see … I do see a guy where I go, ‘I understand, this guy’s got the chance to be the franchise quarterback. I understand why … you know this is Drew Brees’ last year in New Orleans. Because this guy has a bigtime arm, I mean a really bigtime arm. He can really spin it, throw it with power, we see how he launches the ball down the field. Of course his athleticism. "The big thing I saw especially during the season a little this past season, and then especially last preseason, Mike. And when I was accumulating a list and going back to watch plays just to think about some thoughts I wanted to say about some players, man, Taysom Hill in preseason last year …Leaps and bounds from where he was the year before. Ability to play in the pocket, process information, go through reads, get to that second read, read it and get the ball out of his hands in a hurry was all really good." Yeah, not particularly wacky or idiotic. Someone can disagree, certainly. But understanding that this is not his full explanation, it's just a response to Florio, it's not idiotic. The thing he says that I thought was really interesting was "the fact of the matter is he's being coached by Sean Payton. And anyone who comes in after Drew Brees, you go through it. If Drew Brees has been hurt or is not able to play, go back and look, anybody out there. They've come in and all played well. I mean Teddy Bridgewater went 5-0. Luke McCown, when he was the backup to Brees, he came in and had a few 300 yard games and touchdowns and things like that, so I just think he's been taught well and understands the position and really refined himself." (Simms was wrong, it wasn't "a few" 300 yard gains for McCown, in the regular seasons it was one, but he basically played one real game for them and played very well indeed.)

You might be disagreeing with EJ himself about his abilities, as he has retired from a profession where if he'd continued on Barkley's career path he might probably have made far more than he could ever make at most other career paths, even for smart and charismatic guys, which he is. The thread is not Chris Simms' original opinion. It's a clickbait thread which apparently somewhat misrepresented what Simms said. As for your opinion that Stidham is a dime a dozen guy ... you might be right. You also might be wrong. Have an opinion? Fine. And if you want to bet on it, you will probably find some Pats fans who might take you up on that.

Heh heh. Nice.

Not at all. Happens all the time. First round QBs fail pretty often. Using your logic it's easy to point out how idiotic it would have been to predict that, say Tom Brady might have done better than people who were drafted well before him. And there are a ton of examples of guys doing better than people drafted far above them. Look at Fitzy. Was EJ Manuel better than Matt Barkley? Was Griffin III better than Foles or Cousins or Russell Wilson? And again, the argument is about how that guy would do this year, not over the long term. I don't know which one is better, now or over the course of their career. But it's pretty reasonable to agree or disagree at this point, I think. We just don't know. These are all just opinions.

Well, right now you know absolutely nothing about how he made the decision or why he thinks so ... so a lot deeper than that if you want people to care. And great point about the mocking. I don't know of any mocked arguments that have ever been correct, so you've got an excellent point ther.e

Yup. Also worth noting that Simms was talking - as has been pointed out a few pages back - not on long term potential, but on what value a coach on the hot seat would put on the guy. This year, in other words. One major advantage Stidham has on Tua when looked at in that light is simply that he's had a year of experience in the NFL. He knows a lot more about the systems and how defenses work in the NFL, a lot more.