The reason Zach does so well late in games when it's a hurry up situation is that the defense is playing differently, and most times much looser. That's the one variable that a lot of people aren't considering. In the middle of the game, the defense isn't going to be playing like that, so the hurry up is not going to work as well. There can be no more clear indication of him not being able to read the defense than this.
He also breaks the pocket a lot more often late in games against lighter rushers possibly against tired defensive lineman that can’t sub if they’re in the hurry up. The Jets tried to emulate this by running no huddle against the Chargers during various points of the game. At one point he called out three calls that I’d guess were dummy calls then looked over to the sideline and put his hand up as if he didn’t know what to do. That’s what the QB’s do in college since they use a signal system rather than helmet microphones. That was very alarming..
I didn't pick up on that at all, very nice. We passed alarming a while back. I think the couple of good quarters he had against the Chiefs gave him a short reprieve, but it's clear that he is not an NFL caliber quarterback at this point.
I’d be interested in seeing the crossover between people who said in June “if Aaron Rodgers goes down we are screwed anyway“ and the people who are saying in November “if we had a competent back up quarterback we would be in contention to win the division“.
it was desperation time and the pass rushers were fully pinned back. we need to open the offense before we are 2 scores behind
just because it's up-tempo doesn't mean it isn't handcuffed. you run up-tempo to stop the D from substituting which is what we did. we also wanted to give him time at the line to make adjustments. we were getting to the line with 15 seconds to spare almost every play at that point and zach was calling audibles
yes the whole offense took turns sucking. lazard was trash. ruckert showed why he isn't getting more snaps. GW had his worse game as a jet, hall couldn't get going and had his worse game, turner and mitchell were awful, becton and tomlinson weren't good either. the whole offense shit the bed
Sure you can, but at the time anyone who suggested Douglas maybe fucked up by not going after anyone competent was met with the classic "if Rodgers goes down we're screwed so it doesn't matter". That wasn't smart then and it's even less smart now.
All of these "variables" being referenced are the things that balance out over time. Sometimes guys get gimme sacks and sometimes they truly work for sacks. Sometimes QBs throw TD passes where the receiver does 90% of the work and sometimes they don't. That is true for every DL/LB/QB/WR over the course of games and seasons. Every player is subject to the same variance, and the degree to which they are subject to it balances out over hundreds of plays. The MLB "games in a season" analogy is meaningless, because they are entirely different sports where players see different amounts of action per game. A more apt comparison would be at bats vs. plays or passing attempts, and there are hundreds of each of those over the course of an MLB/NFL season. These are all NFL players playing the game of football with the same rules against roughly the same set of teams and other players. There are a ton of constants. To act like there are none is wild.
When his top 3 targeted receivers are avg over 10 yards a reception i think you may be wrong. But wtf do i know i dont base my opinions over emotions. I prefer to use stats
Where do you get that? I show 8. He has 5 in the last two games. https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/fumbles https://www.nfl.com/players/zach-wilson/stats/
but it can't balance out due to the variables always changing due to the human element. things can only balance out when there are no variables. variables don't balance themselves out. a perfect example is a kicker who kicks 80% of his career in a dome vs a kicker who kicks 80% of their career in bad weather games outside. literally ever thing is a factor. a coin can even out over time because it's a constant 50/50 chance every time. getting 10 heads in a row doesn't balance out at 17 tosses. sample size is too small. it'll balance out at 1000 though
Things can only balance out when there are no variables? I'm sorry but there are fundamental misunderstandings about statistics here which make it impossible to grasp what I'm trying to say.
Well I also think the problem here is that every single person who cites a statistic is taking into account the variables and simply using the statistic as supporting evidence for what they believe. Ala we all acknowledge that the offensive line isn’t very good and hasn’t been very good this year. The playcalling also hasn’t been very good. But there is still enough smoke to realize that there’s a fire in the distance that he’s not a good QB regardless of all of these things. And then people say all those things and say see; the statistics also prove my hypotheses. And then a certain poster says that doesn’t matter my eye test is the only thing that matters so it’s pointless to argue.
