Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season


  • Please log in to reply
243 replies to this topic

#46 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:03 PM

Well now, that's a fair question. I guess we should ask Dwayne Jarrett and see what insight he can provide. :)

As far as the second question, I would say neither.


I appreciate what you are saying, however QB is the hardest position in pro sports.

#47 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,613 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:04 PM

pretty sure the fact Moore got all of them into the endzone is pretty big difference maker.

plus, there is a difference in the production the WRs did w/ Moore in comparison to Clausen's vintage 4th Q garbage yardage that was given to him.

I'd prefer the QB who throws downfield to WRs given it is a playaction offense. Gives you a punchers chance instead of just being a punching bag w/ Clasuen in.

stats can be twisted. Moore had a lot of bad, but the offense had a chance w/ him. Eyeball test is better than nitpicking stat sheets.

You and your eyeballs must need glasses, because the professionals don't see things the way you do. :)

#48 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:07 PM

pretty sure the fact Moore got all of them into the endzone is pretty big difference maker.

plus, there is a difference in the production the WRs did w/ Moore in comparison to Clausen's vintage 4th Q garbage yardage that was given to him.

I'd prefer the QB who throws downfield to WRs given it is a playaction offense. Gives you a punchers chance instead of just being a punching bag w/ Clasuen in.

stats can be twisted. Moore had a lot of bad, but the offense had a chance w/ him. Eyeball test is better than nitpicking stat sheets.


Have you ever looked at when Moore put up yards?

44% of his yards came in the 4th, Clausen had 37% of his yards come in the 4th.

What is it next?

Your eyeball test is what is the issue, you remember the very best and the very worst, not the average play.

Edited by Urrymonster, 20 January 2011 - 05:11 PM.


#49 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,906 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:16 PM

Have you ever looked at when Moore put up yards?

44% of his yards came in the 4th, Clausen had 37% of his yards come in the 4th.

What is it next?

Your eyeball test is what is the issue, you remember the very best and the very worst, not the average play.


I looked at what everyone did. The WRs were clearly more productive w/ Moore.

How many of the WRs scores were garbage time production w/ Moore?? There is a difference between 4th q plays and garbage 4th quarter yards.

Matt Moore only completed 2 4th quarters all season so it is really pointless to compare those type numbers w/ Clausen. One of those 2 was anything but garbage time as they won it in the 4th.

Edited by CRA, 20 January 2011 - 05:20 PM.


#50 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,377 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:18 PM

As I said, by the end of the season the OL proved they can be an effective run blocking unit, but we still need depth. Otah may have been the only one injured at the start but by the end he wasn't. They were bad in pass protection all the way through.

I like that you call no touchdowns the "same joy," yet both of our other quarterbacks were able to find our wide receivers for at least one TD in a game. How that makes it the "same joy" is beyond me.

Oh, for pity's sake! Gettis and LaFell were rookies. Since when you do expect rookie WRs to be worth anything? Especially rookies gotten in the third and sixth? They're both going to be way better next year. And that will make whatever poor slob we line up under center look good too.

I remember how everyone used to argue that Smitty made Jake look good. Now it's Jimmy making the WRs look bad?

It's a team sport. No one is as good as they look when things are going well, and no one is as bad as they look when they aren't.


what does this have to do with what I said? They caught touchdown passes from other quarterbacks, but not Jimmy. How is that the wide receivers fault??

#51 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,377 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:22 PM

Have you ever looked at when Moore put up yards?

44% of his yards came in the 4th, Clausen had 37% of his yards come in the 4th.

What is it next?

Your eyeball test is what is the issue, you remember the very best and the very worst, not the average play.


The thing is, more of Moore's fourth quarters "mattered" compared to Clausen's fourth quarters, since we were still in many games.

Moore wasn't very good, but he did get receivers into the endzone at least.

edit: It's not "just" a few passes that ended in touchdowns, either.

It's not that it was 5 of 43 passes that ended in TDs to WRs versus zero in 71; it was that he had 5 TD passes to WRs in 5 games, compared to 0 in 10.

#52 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:26 PM

I looked at what everyone did. The WRs were clearly more productive w/ Moore.

How many of the WRs scores were garbage time production w/ Moore?? There is a difference between 4th q plays and garbage 4th quarter yards.

Matt Moore only completed 2 4th quarters all season so it is really pointless to compare those type numbers w/ Clausen. One of those 2 was anything but garbage time as they won it in the 4th.


So Moore racked up 44% of his yards in the 4th AND only completed two of them, which means if he had stayed in, even more of his yards would have come from the 4th. Conversely Clausen subbed in when Moore was pulled, which should mean Clausen should have the higher proportion of yards in the 4th quarter between the two, but he didn't.

Moore won one game, so define what is garbage.

Clausen came oh so close to getting us a win against New Orleans, Cleveland and won against Arizona. The ONLY game Moore wasn't blown out against was against SF. So Clausen was playing competitively in 3 of his 11, Moore in 1 of his 4. Guess what, pretty similar ratios there (here is a hint, Clausen's is actually higher...)

It's funny how garbage time only applies to Clausen in your reasoning :rolleyes:

Edited by Urrymonster, 20 January 2011 - 05:31 PM.


#53 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:29 PM

The thing is, more of Moore's fourth quarters "mattered" compared to Clausen's fourth quarters, since we were still in many games.

Moore wasn't very good, but he did get receivers into the endzone at least.

edit: It's not "just" a few passes that ended in touchdowns, either.

It's not that it was 5 of 43 passes that ended in TDs to WRs versus zero in 71; it was that he had 5 TD passes to WRs in 5 games, compared to 0 in 10.


Yup, 5 passes. Say it anyway you want, but that is the single difference (and 20 yards per receiver) between Clausen and Moore.

You could actually flip the argument and say that Moore was too reliant on the WRs, meaning defences could jump routes more effectively hence the extra interceptions. Whereas Clausen involved more people in the passing game and got production out of his H-backs and TEs.

#54 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,377 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:31 PM

So Moore racked up 44% of his yards in the 4th AND only completed two of them, which means if he had stayed in, even more of his yards would have come from the 4th.

Moore won one game, so define what is garbage.

Clausen came oh so close to getting us a win against New Orleans, Cleveland and won against Arizona. The ONLY game Moore wasn't blown out against was against SF.

It's funny how garbage time only applies to Clausen in your reasoning :rolleyes:


This is NOT true.

The NYG was within one score going into the fourth, we were still in it. TB we were within 9 though he got pulled in that game anyway. Against the Rams, it was 3 to 10 their favor heading into the fourth, no blowout there. Add in the SF game and those are the only 4th quarters he played in, and 4 of his 5 starts. His sixth game played was against Chicago.

Obviously, Clausen would gain another couple close games under these criteria, but I don't think 8 of his 10 starters were games into the fourth quarter. I could be mistaken though and I have to go get dinner, so no time to look :)

#55 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,906 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:34 PM

So Moore racked up 44% of his yards in the 4th AND only completed two of them, which means if he had stayed in, even more of his yards would have come from the 4th.

Moore won one game, so define what is garbage.

Clausen came oh so close to getting us a win against New Orleans, Cleveland and won against Arizona. The ONLY game Moore wasn't blown out against was against SF.

It's funny how garbage time only applies to Clausen in your reasoning :rolleyes:


4th q production isn't bad thing. Dink and dunking in the 4th q when the game is over is garbage yards.


Clausen didn't come close to getting us a win. We lost b/c when it finally came down to needing just a tiny bit of QB play....he imploded. Watch Clausen after the run.......look at the time on the clock after the run and what occured.

How many Moore blowouts were there then?

#56 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:50 PM

4th q production isn't bad thing. Dink and dunking in the 4th q when the game is over is garbage yards.


Clausen didn't come close to getting us a win. We lost b/c when it finally came down to needing just a tiny bit of QB play....he imploded. Watch Clausen after the run.......look at the time on the clock after the run and what occured.

How many Moore blowouts were there then?


Lol. So first you criticise Clausen for getting the lion share of his yards in the 4th quarter. Which he wasn't.

Now you criticise him for dinking and dunking in the 4th. That's a big change. Also really not true.

14-16 against NO
23-24 against CLE
12-19 against ARI

I don't care how he handled it, because that is nothing to do with what you were arguing. You just said 'garbage time, GARBAGE TIME. Clausen ONLY racked up yards when there was nothing to play for.'

See, you wouldn't even credit him for a very good 4th against Cleveland, which just kinda shows how close minded and frankly ignorant you are.

Have you ever watched Brady and Manning operate in the 4th, with time running low? They take what they can, using the sidelines and time outs to get them closer and closer to the red zone, they don't just chuck it up.

As for Moore?

His starts:
31 - 18
20 - 7
20 - 23
20 - 10 (big 4th quarter from STL)

So he won one close one and fell apart in the 4th in another.

Face it, these two performed so scarily similar. The only difference was that Moore chucked it around 10% deeper, forcing it to WRs when he shouldn;t have. Clausen at times needed that gutsy throw, but was more careful with the ball and had more 3rd down failures because of it.

#57 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,459 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 20 January 2011 - 06:17 PM

I won't go on for pages about it or even argue ad nauseum but much of this argument is irrelevant. Football isn't scored by how many passes you throw behind the line, or for short distances versus long ones. The game is determined by scoring points. You can throw 20 passes short but if it results in numerous 3 and outs and for 0 points you haven't accomplished anything. If a quarterback comes in and throws 4 passes and 3 of them go for touchdowns, you have 21 points and are in the game. If you throw 50 passes and score 0 points, they were ineffective and largely wasted particularly if you didn't move the chains and at least change field position.

So why not argue about things such as number of 50 yard drives, percentage of passes that went for first downs. How about number of scoring drives as a function of passes thrown. TD to INT ratios or other things that actually matter and are what we judge the effectiveness of a quarterback.

Weinke hands down could throw for 300 yards a game no problem but he wasn't able to score points and win games or even make them close. If you don't throw any touchdowns or at least drive the ball in the redzone where you score a field goal or run the ball in, you are lousy no matter how many passes you complete between the 30s.

At least then, this discussion would be about things that matter in a game and create offense ie. points.

When you look at Bradford for example versus Clausen in terms of points generated by the offense, multiple TD games etc, then you get a feel for how effective a quarterback is during a game. Otherwise stats like number of completed passes behind the line or other information is really irrelevant.

You guys can do better. LOL

#58 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 20 January 2011 - 06:23 PM

I won't go on for pages about it or even argue ad nauseum but much of this argument is irrelevant. Football isn't scored by how many passes you throw behind the line, or for short distances versus long ones. The game is determined by scoring points. You can throw 20 passes short but if it results in numerous 3 and outs and for 0 points you haven't accomplished anything. If a quarterback comes in and throws 4 passes and 3 of them go for touchdowns, you have 21 points and are in the game. If you throw 50 passes and score 0 points, they were ineffective and largely wasted particularly if you didn't move the chains and at least change field position.

So why not argue about things such as number of 50 yard drives, percentage of passes that went for first downs. How about number of scoring drives as a function of passes thrown. TD to INT ratios or other things that actually matter and are what we judge the effectiveness of a quarterback.

Weinke hands down could throw for 300 yards a game no problem but he wasn't able to score points and win games or even make them close. If you don't throw any touchdowns or at least drive the ball in the redzone where you score a field goal or run the ball in, you are lousy no matter how many passes you complete between the 30s.

At least then, this discussion would be about things that matter in a game and create offense ie. points.

When you look at Bradford for example versus Clausen in terms of points generated by the offense, multiple TD games etc, then you get a feel for how effective a quarterback is during a game. Otherwise stats like number of completed passes behind the line or other information is really irrelevant.

You guys can do better. LOL





Warton vs. Bernadeau next how many pages can we get out of this battle.

#59 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,459 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 20 January 2011 - 06:27 PM

Warton vs. Bernadeau next how many pages can we get out of this battle.


I guess it depends on who is slob bobbing on either of these guys. It seems to take only 2 or 3 guys to go on for 20 pages. LOL

#60 Seamonk

Seamonk

    kekekekekeke

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,054 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 06:35 PM

I just want a QB with a pair of balls.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.