FireChan

Everything this guy did was illegal...

Decent concept, horrific execution. E for effort, you'll get 'em next time.

I mean, it's not hard. Cam Newton Year 1 vs. Russell Wilson Year 1. Completion percentage, 60 vs. 64.1 TD%, 4.1 to 6.6 INT%, 3.3 to 2.5 YPA, 7.8 to 7.9 AYPA, 7.2 to 8.1 Passer rating, 84.5 to 100 QBR, 56 to 72 4QC, 1 to 4 GWD, 1 to 5 There are a few that Cam beat him in, like sack percentage, and NYPA (which is based off sacks). Other than that, Russ killed him. Combined with the intangibles RW had (I don't know how you'd like me to quantify being a better QB in terms of reading a defense, keeping eyes downfield, looking off safeties etc. but maybe you could ask someone who has actually watched both players) it wasn't really close. Anyways, have at it. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NewtCa00.htm http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm

The fanbase swells.

These guys get it.

Yes. I think RW was a better passer, a better QB than Cam out of college.

Huh?

And Whaley also gets an extension after posting the illustrious .500 right after.

The Treatise Of Versailles (Connecticut).

A Treatise on Treatising.

He wouldn't want this.

You gotta learn to let him go. He wouldn't want this.

So you don't think that it's objective that Wilson is/was a much better passer than the rest of the group? He didn't set the league on fire or even have much success when he started, not to mention he was benched, started, injured etc.. Again, a fragmented start doesn't make for easy data analysis. But if there was ever a guy who could overcome all odds....

Well, YOU won't. But tons of other people can and will. A childless couple can live off of $62K a year or 56 after taxes. It's not 4 children, it's 2 children. It's a family of 4. I don't see why somebody making 30k a year shouldn't have to pay taxes. It also incentivizes making more money. I agree that it should be set to ensure food, water and shelter but no more. If you want to get an iPhone and still pay rent, work harder.

If QB A throws for 50 TD's on 100 passes, and QB B throws for 25 TD's on 50 passes, which one is better?

Yes it does. But more chances doesn't mean he's better at it. Your argument is flawed, not fair. You can't just keep repeating something so logically inconsistent until it becomes true.

And more chances doesn't mean he'll be better at it. You're conflating opportunity with ability.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the defense has nothing to do with the QB's performance. We aren't talking wins and losses here, we're talking performance on the field. Throws, TD's, first downs. INT's. You're being intellectually dishonest, and I'm not sure why.

What?

Dont you think this would have happened this year after some games? A little bit, sure. It's a bit different between only a week to plan and a whole offseason to dissect him. What is not taken into account is whether Tyrod's game continues to evolve Because I don't think he'll truly evolve in game-situations until he's forced to. It all depends on what they want TT to do going into next year......do they want him to throw from the pocket? What? Of course they do. Like I have been saying all along.....if our defense wasnt shitting the bed nearly EVERY game....this years offense would have been enough to reach the playoffs. What does this have to do with Tyrod's ability as a QB? If our defense didn't allow a single point all game, I could be the QB and reach the playoffs. It is no indicator of a QB's performance. It is totally irrelevant.

While this practice is frowned upon... "For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free."

- How much will Tyrod being a "seasoned rookie" as I like to call him factor into the scenario you are painting? Not much because I believe most of the regression occurs based on film and playing time. so going into year two does Roman start giving Tyrod more of the offense? And what does that do in terms of increased production.....or decreased efficience? I can't imagine a scenario where a 2nd year QB doesn't get more of the offense compared to the first year, unless he sucks. Did the Panthers not give Cam more as he went along? They know who their starter is going into next season so what does Doug Whaley do to continue to put pieces on offense AROUND Tyrod Taylor? Probably. But all teams try to do that.

Don't be absurd. I would never call Kelly an actual dog. The argument for RW is a good one. It was really hard to keep him out. Looking back, I probably should've included him, but I honestly felt he was such a better passer out of box compared to the rest, it didn't seem fair. Like, "Wilson bucked the trend, but he is/was so much of a better QB than the rest, it doesn't seem likely that TT or any mobile QB follows him." It's like comparing first round QB's to Luck. It's just not the norm, or fair. Good point. The problem WRT Vick is that he had a fragmented first few years. Only started 2 games as a rook, then had a 15 game season, then the next year he had a 4 game starting season. I was debating whether to include him, but I decided to avoid him (mostly because there wasn't any good way to go about it IMO) I disagree. With a stronger defense, we could be okay. Gotta stay healthy on his side, and our defense needs to be more clutch. Again, see above. Again, see above. And I hope you are correct. I actually didn't come up with a conclusion until the halfway point. I figured if I didn't use my cursory analysis to make some kind of point, this topic would get approximately zero replies. Treatise was to draw the reader in. Old hockey trick. My magnum opus (of the week). There's plenty of room for debate. I thought it would be fun to talk about. It's not like there's anything else to discuss. 1) Ignore the non-typical QB who was a much more complete passer even in his rookie campaign, yes. Just like you ignore Luck in a discussion about standard 1st round QB's. 2) I could've gone more in depth with RG3's injuries true, but I wasn't trying to focus on any specific QB, but paint a grander trend-line. 3) I think my criteria was more than fair, but feel free to tell me why it wasn't when discussing the first few years of mobile QB's. 4) It was common knowledge that Cam , beyond the stat sheet, did not show much of an improvement from year 1 to 2, and regressed in certain instances. If you have differing opinion on that, go for it. I mean, the dude still was good. He's supposed to be the higher extreme. 5) In Kaep's second full season as a starter, he showed regression. Significant regression. He's on the RG3 track, IMO. Again, probably should've been a little more clear in that. I assure you, I wasn't trying to say Tyrod sucks. Just the opposite. I was more trying to plead patience, as it's not uncommon for QB's who rely on their physical to show some regression in their second year when they either have to rely on their passing abilities, or more ineffectively rely on their mobile skills. And how they respond to this perceived truth is what kind of QB they become. As to this point, how many "successful" franchise QB's shown regression in their second year? How many of them are mobile? AFAIK, most pocket passing QB's (as opposed to the "mobile" category I have made) instead take leaps forward if they are to be successful. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that mobile QB's emerge out of the box better than traditional QB's, and when they start to have to rely on their arm, they start to falter, whereas the successful pocket passers improve. Look at Dalton's career trajectory. Or Tanny's. Or Peyton's. Or Luck's (contradicting myself, very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large, I contain multitudes).

See? How hard was it to actually have some substance? I mean, among many other problems, you narrowly defined "mobile" to eliminate some very mobile QBs (Alex Smith had a ton of rushing yards this year), apparently based on one play from the Titans game that defines mobility for you. I thought my definition was more than fair. I don't feel that Smith ever relied on his physical gits as much as my other examples. Not to mention that he was hot garbage his first year, instead of setting the league on fire like RG3 and Cam, or being quietly very successful like TT. And I used the Titans play to illustrate what I meant as "mobile." Do you contend Smith has a very similar chance of converting that play as rookie RG3, Cam or TT? I disagree. TT, RG3 and Cam took over games as runners. I never saw that Alex Smith in his early years. Hell, he didn't eclipse 200 yards rushing until he went to KC. And then you chose to focus on two recent examples of players who are much different than Taylor in numerous respects, and used their second year performances to make a prediction about Tyrod, without any real analysis of context, similarities, or differences... They are different in respects, sure. List them and argue them. Give me quantifiable reasons. I focused on the two recent only because IMO, they represent the extremes of the spectrum. Pray tell, what "context" am I missing? The key similarity was reliance on physical gifts FYI. to call it a "treatise" is pedantic and frankly ludicrous. Kisses. The difference is I have a roaming fanbase.

What's your question? You are up for the tack hammer, I suppose.