FireChan

I wasn't trying to blast your story, I had just been a healthy skeptic of MW being the perfect teammate, and I got into a ton of arguments over it.

Mike Williams was a lazy malcontent. Shocker.

A little less than half.

How do we know he's not injury prone? We don't. EJ as a prospect is an amorphous blob. The only way he will get better is by staying healthy and practicing/getting game experience. He can't do either of those things injured. I'd consider telling him to not take risks with his body as necessary for him to continue to develop. You gave me a false choice up there. QB's that run the read option get hit more than QB's that don't. That's just a fact. Getting hit is usually a decent avenue to getting injured.

While that's true that he ran it as a rookie, I and many others on this board wanted EJ to stay healthy above almost all costs, including even wins in 2014. Calling it a mistake is a benefit of hindsight. EJ getting sidelined because of an inflamed knee does nothing for his development. Nothing. Inviting a Jake Locker situation would've been crazy.

EJ Manuel didn't run the read option in college. He IS a pocket passer.

I think the argument is that Marrone knew Orton was worse than EJ and carefully planned for EJ to have one of the worst games ever to bench him for an inferior QB and squeak out a playoff less 9-7 season.

Marrone said he needed better production from the QB position. Direct quote. That's why he switched.

Dude. What? So Marrone and Whaley wanted EJ to learn behind a vet. The vet got hurt and EJ played. The second season, Marrone wanted a vet QB, while Whaley was resistant to giving Orton that contract. That's what the argument in TC was about. When EJ started to struggle, and play horrifically, Marrone took him out. He didn't take EJ out because "he didn't care if they made the playoffs," that makes no sense.

Romo was an UDFA.

Many more sentences, so few answers.

You cannot argue with someone who doesn't play by the same rules of logic. It's impossible.

Correlation does not equal causation.

5 more sentences. Zero answers.

All of us, I think.

..

Ah, I misremembered. Damn.

3 sentences. No answers.

But why Bush? I think I've perhaps seen one positive remark about Bush on PPP. And it was a begrudging remark. It boggles my mind. What's the point?

Fitz's six TD game to get the Tennesee Titan monkey off his back had a little something to do with their record. Also, he had a winning record with a decent team around him, who did their fair share of choking in late situations.

Good points and I wonder this in addition, would EJ's rating have been better if SJ and Chandler hadn't fumbled at the end and the Bills won? If so, it would seem be less objective. But I'll give it this. The SD game was a tough game for EJ with the wind and pass protection problems with which to deal. I think his tQBR was sub 10 but passer rating was ~85. I think the former was more reflective of what went on and not the latter. Did Tebow do anything in the run game in the above mentioned? I pulled your post out of my quoted one, FYI. I have every reason to believe that if Chandler/SJ13 doesn't fumble, and we hit the game winning FG, EJ's QBR would've risen 15 points. That's what QBR likes to rate, 4thQ comebacks and GW drives. In its thought process, that's a great idea. Clutch QB play down the stretch is a major difference between guys like Peyton and Brady. I know the counter argument (not that you'd make it, just an example). It's that "you can't guarantee that Carpenter hits that FG" or some other thing like that. Bills offense in their red zone with one second left on the clock and a 28 yard FG. Can't guarantee he hits it. That's true. But, for a stat that's main goal is "dividing credit among teammates" (that's a direct quote from ESPN), why the hell should EJ's QBR drop if Carpenter shanked the kick? What does he have to do with that, he's not even on the field! It makes no sense. But drop it would. The stat is fine in general cases, but it is not and will never be the end all be all. It, just like passer rating, needs the context of the rest of the stats. To your second question, yes. Timmy had 8 rushes for 68 yards and a TD. That's what is even funnier. That's affects ESPN's stat of how well the QB plays? Why? The QB's job has never been to run. Yet, if he can't complete a pass, but rushes for 50 yards, he comes out alright with ESPN's QBR. Even more nonsensical. Also, the funniest example is Tim Tebow's 2 passes completed for a QBR of 56.6. No joke. 2 for 8, and that was his QBR. Unless he rushed for 300 yards, that is not an "above average" performance. Now you may say, "Hey FC, is passer rating was 100+, it's not like that did any better," and that's true. The difference is that tQBR was supposed to not fall into the same traps passer rating did. That was the whole point of the stat, to be better than passer rating. And it can't even do that. That's why I call it the Tebow stat. Because the only thing it does with any real success is make Tebow look like a great QB.

Here's an example of QBR's woes, and, shockingly, it's pro-EJ. Tim Tebow vs. NYJ in 2011. 9 of 20, for 104 yard. 45%, 5.20 YPA, 0 TD's 0 INT's. 53.7 QBR. EJ Manuel vs. ATL in 2013 18 of 32, 210 yards, 56.3% 6.56 YPA, 1 TD 0 INT's. 50.3 QBR. And make no mistake, EJ should've gotten "clutch factor" points. I don't agree with a lot of the excuses made for him, but he won that game. And we get this. This is the barometer for QB success?

And yet, it is known as the Tim Tebow stat, because Timmy leading a game winning drive after sucking all game made him better than Aaron Rodgers throwing two TD's and 300 yards in a blowout. It's a subjective stat. Used for objective purposes. It's laughable that OC champions it, after posting about being analytical, and no one can give me the 4 thousand line code. You know why? Because no one knows how it works. Yet, it's the "best." It's great in its idea and poor in its execution.

No, I want to see the methodology. Not the "summary." Things like "clutch factor" need to be seen and evaluated. In fact, the entire thing does. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating You're a man of science. Don't tell me you were convinced of the validity of tQBR because ESPN told you it works.

I didn't know you meant 50th percentile. How is QBR recorded? What's the method?