The comparison shouldn't be made, because both of those guys stand in the pocket well aware of the fact they are being blitzed. Geno still displayed the fact that he feels pressure when it's not there. He often drifted out of a perfect pocket against the Raiders and cut the field in half when he had plenty of time to throw. Some game manager qualities can be taught and I like the way you phrased the fact that arm talent is drafted in the first round. I can't disagree with it. But we're seeing someone like Dalton whom slipped into the second round as more of a game manager and he's now a very dynamic player because he spreads the ball around. Arm talent can only get you so far if you're constantly throwing late because you misread the defense from the start and aren't sure what coverage the defenders are in. He wasn't taking chances though. He was eating the ball out of the pocket and taking sacks. You live with him forcing the ball down field some more in a game with a larger point disparity. You can't live with clock killing plays like he displayed several times at the end of the game. Everyone seems to be equating mistakes with only turnovers. Drive killing sacks are just as bad as throwing an interception. He held the ball twice and ran an extra 70 seconds off the clock as a result of those plays which essentially took away one more possession from us. And not for anything, but he created the controversy that forced him to miss training camp, preseason and the beginning of the NFL season. I have no sympathy for him having missed time. He should've thought about that before he decided to dodge a TEAMMATE after owing him money, and then confronting him in the locker room over it. I respect the write up and appreciate the time it took to rebut my points, but I guess we saw things differently. I still saw a guy nervous in the pocket, looking to get out of it as quickly as possible on each given play. In terms of Fitzpatrick vs. Geno, Geno averages 6.8 yard/attempt for his career, and Fitzpatrick averages 6.7 yards/attempt for his career. This season Fitzpatrick is at 7.1 and against the Raiders Geno was at 6.3. Take it for what you will, but Fitzpatrick 'not looking to throw the ball down field' is really overblown at this point. He can't throw bombs, but he can throw effectively in the intermediate range. He's completing 56.3 percent of his passes in the 11-20 range. We all know his limitations, but he has also done a good job at keeping the offense moving. He's also completed 58.3 percent of his passes on 3rd & 6 or more. That may be the overall point. In his 3rd year in the league, things like footwork shouldn't be as much of a work in progress as it is. I'm talking more about footwork in the pocket in terms of sliding and moving himself to avoid the rush but keeping himself in good position to make the throw. He also throws off his back foot a ton, and while a lot of quarterbacks do this in the league, he doesn't have good enough touch to do this consistently. I do not have a link to the specific play. They were in a wide 9 and sent two backers to each A-gap. He backpedaled immediately. I think I may be a bit too critical of him on this play after thinking about it some. It would've been an excellent play if he completed the pass, but it was a moot point because Colon held and the line wasn't in the right protection to block the blitz. Blame this 90% on the center, 10% on the quarterback pre-snap in my opinion, but it was an excellently timed blitz. Geno goes through multiple reads at his time, usually. He did today and does look off players, though not as much as he usually doe. Maybe that's rust but Geno does read coverage. And if his passes were so telegraphed, you'd think he would have a bunch of dropped INTs today for throwing 42 times. He didn't. Fitz often throws fewer times and has more dropped INTs. Geno has shown development in this area since his rookie year, though he can improve and his arm makes up for it a bit. Take it for what you will, but you would think someone would've stood up for Geno and said he was right in the sitatuon after the IK incident especially since IK was a nobody who was cut within hours of the incident. Everyone basically said they were both wrong. Not believing in your quarterback is a lot different than not liking him. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of these things. You saw it with a more positive approach, while I saw it with a more negative approach. Getting better at something you're really bad at, doesn't automatically mean you're good enough to hang around in this league. The biggest pressing issue is that when the moment gets bigger, he gets worse. Bowles and Gailey displayed how little confidence they have in him after punting the ball away down two scores. Either that, or they're morons. Over three years, I just don't see enough improvement to make me think he'll ever be a good NFL quarterback. What's the plan? To have him learn to throw the ball out of bounds out of the pocket by year 5? Have a positive TD/INT ratio by year 6? I just think we've seen plenty of him, and how he folds late in games to know what we have in him. It'll be interesting if he plays vs. Jacksonville to see how he plays by the 4th quarter. Teams are going to do the same thing they've done to Geno in every game he's played in. Blitz him like hell in the first quarter and he's going to feel a 6-7 man blitz in the 4th quarter when you're only sending 4. We'll see though.
The game was lost well before there was only 3 minutes left. Geno's best chance to really get us back in that game was when the Jets got the ball back with 8 minutes left or so, down two touchdowns. Meh, he looked like the same Geno to me. I don't fully buy this excuse. This is just wrong and bad reading comprehension. When someone writes that "player x was the worst player over the course of those two seasons" - the meaning is obviously OVERALL (i.e. Over the course of those 32 games, who was the worst tenured starter in the league?) You obviously don't have to be the absolute worst for the entirety of both seasons for that statement to hold true. And again, I'll stand by that statement. He was AT LEAST as bad as any other tenured starter OVER THE COURSE OF 2013-2014. Also, big picture here, it really isn't helping Geno's case that you are going out of your way to separate him from the likes of Blake Bortles. LOL. The point is that he was bad and well below average. Also, your statement that because he was only the "25th ranked" he therefore wasn't the worst is just silly. He may or may not have been the worst in 2014 (I tend to agree that he wasn't the worst), but ranking quarterbacks is more than JUST QBR. By your logic, Tony Romo was the best quarterback last year. He was great, but IMO, he wasn't better than Aaaron Rodgers, for example.
The Raiders went on a long drive and kicked a field goal, so realistically Geno couldn't do much in the & minute mark. Got the ball back with 4 minutes and some change, they move the ball well but they punt instead of going for it. Defense forces 3 and out, offense moves the ball again but they punt instead of going for it on 4th down, we get the ball back with a minute left and at that point it was a long shot. it's really not for you to "buy as an excuse" those are facts. He hadn't played since last year with no reps and he did okay. Again you are wrong, if we are going to call someone the worse over the course of 2 seasons. Then that means that they were ranked dead last in each of those years. I'm not dealing in subjectivity especially when we have the stats to back up that he was not the worst over the course of 2 years. You can continue to believe that but the stats says that he was not the worst starting QB over 2 years.
And? All I wrote was that Geno's best chance to get the Jets back in the game for real was when he got the ball back with around 8 minutes left, down 2 touchdowns. I didn't quibble with any "fact." I just pointed out that, practice time or no practice time, Geno looked like the same old Geno to me. The same untimely, frustrating, and unforced errors. The same flashes of physical brilliance with head-scratching decision-making. The same overall result. Seriously? Uhm, no, it most certainly does not. You are completely lost here. Maybe an example will help you out. Suppose ESPN decides to rank the top 10 quarterbacks of the past decade tomorrow. According to your logic, the number 1 guy would have to be "ranked first" (whatever that means . . . we'll get to that in a minute) for all ten years! Do you see how silly that line of reasoning is? FYI, I have never heard anyone interpret the language that I used in the manner that you have. Of course, the reason is rather obvious: The vast majority of rankings would be impossible, if rankings were assessed in that way. There would be no such thing as the best quarterback over any 10 year period . . . Unless the same guy, amazingly, happened to be "ranked" (again, we'll get to this in a minute) first for ALL TEN seasons. Instead, when someone says or writes that "Peyton Manning was the best quarterback of the 2000's," that person means OVERALL, not for each and every single season, without exception. Also, perhaps more importantly, there is no definitive "ranking" by which to determine who the worst quarterback is in the first place. I presume you are referring to QBR when you mention where Geno is or isn't "ranked". Of course, QBR is just a guideline. There is nothing definitive or final about it. Again, as I wrote earlier, if we just went by total QBR, Tony Romo was "definitively" the best quarterback last season. But, of course that is a highly subjective statement. What you are missing is that all of this is "subjective," to some degree or another.
You're so hung up on stats it's unbelievable. If Geno wasn't the worst over the past two years, he was certainly in the bottom 3, and I don't really give two shits what the stats say. Look at the product on the field. They punted instead of going for it on 4th down because he turned a 4th and 3 into a 4th and 8...
I understand that but considering the circumstances I wasn't expecting him to carry the team that day. The problem is the "worst QB in the league over the course of 2 seasons" is subjective. I agree that he was the worst in his rookie year and the stats back that up. But in his 2nd year he was not THE worst QB. I'm not going to base that off of your opinion, the raw stats over the course of 2 seasons do not back up your point that he was the worst over the course of 2 years. You're presenting this with nothing more than your opinion and I'm backing mine up with facts, does stats tell the whole story? No, but it definitely give you an idea. Again your point about Peyton Manning is based not facts but opinion. I can say, no actually Brett Favre was the best QB of the 2000's, how can you disprove my opinion? I sure know you'll look up the stats and see that Peyton put up better numbers than Favre in the 2000's but I'll say no stats don't tell the story, I'll just fold my arms and stick to Favre being the best QB in the 2000's because I say he was. I didn't look at QBR I looked at the NFL rankings for QBs in 2014.
I CAN agree that he was a lower ranked QB but I'm not buying the notion that he was THE worst QB in football, in a league where Charlie Whitehurst, Josh McCown, Colt McCoy, Cousins, Mettenberger, Bortles, Manziel, Hoyer etc started games last year, I'm not buying that he played worse than those guys last year.
Of course it is! That's the whole point - You are hellbent on treating an inherently subjective question objectively. It doesn't work. What "NFL Rankings"?????? LOL. There is no such thing. The entire discussion is subjective. All we have are individual statistics and what we observe with our own eyes. Again, according your logic, it becomes practically impossible to rank anyone , over any extended period of time, in anything, unless the top performer happened to always finish first in every conceivable, objective metric of performance. It's actually quite comical. Big Picture: Geno has been at or near the bottom of the league statistically over the course of his first two NFL seasons and when people have watched him, they have generally thought: "Wow, this guy sucks."
Two realities: 1) You are (once again) restricting yourself to last year, when the poster you quoted explicitly mentioned "the past two years." (i.e. I'm still not convinced you are grasping the concept of "overall" performance) 2) Several of those guys weren't tenured starters. Geno played almost two full seasons as the starting quarterback for the New York Jets. It's hard to compare him to a guy like Colt McCoy who played sporadically, or Johnny Manziel, who has barely played in the league at all.
How else was I suppose to disprove your point? Just using my opinion isn't enough, but showing you the numbers gives you an idea that he was NOT THE worst QB over the course of 2 seasons. I named players that I saw play that looked worse. You're passing off your opinion as facts.
I conceded that he was the worst starting QB in 2013, but he was not THE worse starting QB last year. This is simply his opinion that I don't have to agree with especially when the stats prove that he was not THE worst QB last year. As well as me watching other QB's play and seeing worse performances. I thought you said THE worst QB? Now it's tenured starter? That's even hard to quantify because guys get hurt/benched and played significant games through those same two years.
The numbers give me no such idea. His numbers were really bad. They were bad enough for me to have the opinion that he was as bad as any starting quarterback over the course of (again, i'm still not convinced you understand what I mean by that) his first two season. You keep writing this as if you believe it is a fact. It isn't. Also, I was careful to write "starting quarterback" or "tenured starting quarterback." So, bringing up a guy like Johnny Manziel doesn't work here. "Player X is worse than Player Y" isn't a fact. LOL. Stop using that word.
Hahaha, you keep ignoring that people have consistently written "over his first two years." The poster you quoted explicitly mentioned Geno's first "two" years. In other words, Geno's marginal improvement from year 1 to year 2 doesn't change the reality that he has, overall, been as bad as just about anyone. I have been pretty clear that I was referring to starting quarterbacks. I have repeatedly written that Geno was as bad or worse than any starting quarterback over the course of his first two years in the league. After all, it would make no sense to compare him to someone like Johnny Manziel, who has barely played.
i dont think it will. deangello williams has looked outstanding when he has been in. plus the AFC in general is a complete joke. they should win 10
i dont recall any other QB doing what geno did this past sunday. taking a sack in bounds... TWICE when you are already outside the pocket, trailing, and need the clock to stop. it doesnt get dumber then that
A bit to harsh on a 2 year QB, imo. All the deficiencies you listed can be improved upon with experience. I'm not a Geno fan by any means but all QB's go thru a learning phase - and can take as much as 5 years to get good results.
So you're willing to give him 5 years before he learns to not take a sack to take us out of field goal range, or take a sack behind the line out of the pocket, or stop throwing pick 6's on screens? Or improve his footwork in the pocket to be competent of even a college quarterback? I don't know how long I'd wait for him to pick up the fundamentals of the game. Some things are not learned with experience and if he doesn't get these things then he'll never get them. You'd live with him routinely throwing into coverage, not him eating sacks week after week or running out of a perfectly pocket when facing a 3 man rush. You're a lot more patient than I am. The troubling thing is he only performs well once they're eliminated from contention. He's played about 6 really good games in his career and they were all in the final 3 games of his two seasons when we were eliminated.
