Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cam and his accuracy issues.

169 posts in this topic

Posted

I like how you just nonchalantly throw out that Delhomme had Steve Smith and Moose like it's no big deal. Yet play up our current WR core like they are world beaters. Olsen may as well be a our #2 receiver production wise.

Who's the other TE on our roster worth a damn? Exactly. So that leaves.... Lafell.

I merely pointed out that Jake had less to work with. The deciding factor was the o line. Which was far better than what we have now. On a side note, you really need to stop reading too much into what I say bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He has definite accuracy issues. But we don't have a perfect vacuum to assess his progress because the line has steadily declined around him.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have a stalker now apparently. You're adorable.

Are you going to continue to type like a teenage girl sending her first text messages and spell "you" as "u"?

of course lets not talk football now. Lets talk about how I spell you and how it's quicker and much easier to just put u since I'm on my phone. I give u props. I would try to change the subject too If I were u...u....u UUUUUUUU
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also will add that Cam is very accurate, even with pressure when he steps up in the pocket. The Ravens did a good job of getting interior push which at times forces Cam to throw flat footed or off his back foot. All QBs will struggle with accuracy when that happens.

As a matter of fact Cam is so strong he can get away with doing that more than most other QBs in the league.

The two things I really would like to see Cam improve on is making quicker decisions and sliding left or right inside the pocket. Both of those things will come as he gets more experience.

People should also realize that even though this will be his third season he is still a little green.

Can't believe I missed this post. You sir, are correct..I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I merely pointed out that Jake had less to work with. The deciding factor was the o line. Which was far better than what we have now. On a side note, you really need to stop reading too much into what I say bro.

 

Jake had a Steve Smith in his effing prime. Less to work with my left nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wat? Fp.. dude. O.o

I'm dead serious. I actually went looking into this as part of the QB stuff I did with my metric, and the more I explored the topic the more it became apparent that the performance deviation between "clutch" and "non-clutch" events for any player was too insignificant to be statistically meaningful. A player that performed 5% better than an average player would often be labeled as clutch even though that difference in performance was entirely within the margin of error.

Furthermore, truly dominant players were often penalized by having a small sample size of clutch events and performing slightly below the norm in them, thereby skewing their "clutch" factor significantly in a menial sense but entirely irrelevant statistically.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Jake had a Steve Smith in his effing prime. Less to work with my left nut.

Dude. I meant as in numbers. Smith and Moose. Vs Smith , LaFell, Olsen. Geez man..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Jake had a Steve Smith in his effing prime. Less to work with my left nut.

Which the double covered him every play and really didn't play the pass but yet stacked the box. So that left moose with our next and pretty much only other option. Hmmmm now we have smith who is no slouch With Olsen and lafell. No doubt smitty was much more in his prime then but saying that our receiving options were better in the jake era is not true when u double smitty every time... Just like they do now as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Dude. I meant as in numbers. Smith and Moose. Vs Smith , LaFell, Olsen. Geez man..

 

Production wise we are talking a whole different ball game. Muhammad could have been a #1 himself.

 

Lafell has yet to even hit 700 yards in a season. Greg Olsen has only gone over 600 yards twice.

 

Moose hit 1,000+ yards three times and only had below 500 yards twice in his whole career here.

 

Steve Smith, well we already know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Which the double covered him every play and really didn't play the pass but yet stacked the box. So that left moose with our next and pretty much only other option. Hmmmm now we have smith who is no slouch With Olsen and lafell. No doubt smitty was much more in his prime then but saying that our receiving options were better in the jake era is not true when u double smitty every time... Just like they do now as well

 

Teams always double covered, or even triple covered Steve Smith. He still lit their asses up. I absolutely love him, but he isn't that guy anymore. We should have drafted a potential replacement for him years ago.

 

As for Moose, read my above post. We've been looking for a #2 receiver to replace him for years too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Production wise we are talking a whole different ball game. Muhammad could have been a #1 himself.

Lafell has yet to even hit 700 yards in a season. Greg Olsen has only gone over 600 yards twice.

Moose hit 1,000+ yards three times and only had below 500 yards twice in his whole career here.

Steve Smith, well we already know.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I meant as in how many options he had to throw too. Jake had basically two. With an amazing o line. Cam has three with a mediocre o line. Regardless of production, age, etc etc. There are a lot of variables in that. Way too many.

Technically Cam has more targets. Smith is aged but still a top 10 guy in my opinion. LaFell is a solid #2/3 option. Olsen is a above average TE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm dead serious. I actually went looking into this as part of the QB stuff I did with my metric, and the more I explored the topic the more it became apparent that the performance deviation between "clutch" and "non-clutch" events for any player was too insignificant to be statistically meaningful. A player that performed 5% better than an average player would often be labeled as clutch even though that difference in performance was entirely within the margin of error.

Furthermore, truly dominant players were often penalized by having a small sample size of clutch events and performing slightly below the norm in them, thereby skewing their "clutch" factor significantly in a menial sense but entirely irrelevant statistically.

I'm going to let that sink in a moment.. honestly it is just incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites