Mr. Scot

David Carr has better stats than a lot of guys when he played. Hell, when we got him one of the big talking points was that he had the best completion percentage in the entire league. Still didn't work out so well. Are there stats that measure field vision? Not really. You can try to apply stats to argue for it but it's all extrapolation. I go back to what I've said before as far as individual stats in a team game. ... Statement: "Quarterback X has lousy completion percentage." Question: How good are his receivers? ... Statement: "Quarterback X hasnt thrown for more than 200 yards in a single game this year." Question: Does his team have a run heavy scheme or a phenomenally effective run game? ... Statement: "Quarterback X has thrown for 3000 yards this season." Question: How many of those yards came after the catch? ... Statement: "Quarterback X didn't throw a pass further than ten yards last game." Question: But did he put the ball in good spots for his receivers to catch it and run for good gains? ... There are hundreds of examples like this, examples that apply to just about every measurable there is in the game. One of the things I have always loved about football is the incredible complexity of the game. But that complexity makes player evaluation all that much more difficult and means that dependence on "simple metrics" just isn't something you can hold in high priority.

Stats can be deceiving. And in football especially they rarely tell the whole story. I'm always gonna trust my eyes over a stat sheet.

Bad team overall perhaps... ...but I'm not so sure I'd put our skill players (other than McMillan) and our MASH unit of an OL over theirs right now.

You have my sympathy for having to watch those games As far as the evaluations, I think a lot of times it's just assumed that someone who has better stats is better in areas like these Again though, I don't care about stats. I don't even look at them outside discussions like this.

Football quarterback is universally considered one of the hardest positions in all of sports to evaluate. Even knowledgeable guys make the wrong choice plenty of times (see: Beathard, Robert) As far as Shedeur, I don't think he's gonna be a great NFL player, but when you get right down to it unless he plays for us (or directly against us) I don't really give a sh-t.

Double Dutch?

Figured it has to be because it's so insane a thing to have happen. That's like tracking whether a guy has ever fumbled by faceplanting in a teammate'a ass.

I did. I kinda hoped we'd pick him up. Being Bryce's backup wouldn't have been a bad situation for him (and certainly could have been good for us). What hurts though is understanding that we didn't so much pick Bryce over him as we did Andy Dalton

He's not really getting much of a choice at the moment. But on this we agree. I think he deserves a chance, and I'd be more than happy to see him get one here.

Yeah, I wouldn't call being a choker "a minor disadvantage". That's kind of a big deal (ditto the durability issues) Basically, Murray is inconsistent, lousy under pressure, has lingering questions about his leadership/ work ethic and yes, isn't espresso durable. Those aren't the kinds of things that necessarily show up on a stat sheet, but they do show up.

I'd sign up for that. Some NFL teams probably would too but others obviously wouldn't or he'd have been drafted higher. I don't really know enough about his durability to say how long a career he could have, though.

I think he got a raw deal there too but don't know enough about his attitude or demeanor to comment. Definitely agree. And yeah, he fits what Canales does. I know the team wouldn't bring him in with the idea of him competing for a starting job, but stuff happens.

He might get moved, but general belief right now says it's less likely. We'll see. Why was he benched? Stories written at the time mention an injury but also cute performance issues. Brissett outperformed him early on but I haven't followed Brissett's performance much since. He is what he is. And no. My disagreeing with you has nothing to do with emotions. I have no emotions in regard to Murray at all. My emotions regarding Bryce are mostly frustration and dread. Yes, I think he's better than Murray right now. Their respective strengths and weaknesses are different, but overall I think Bryce is the better quarterback at this moment. Who who is better two or three years ago or even last year doesn't really mean anything and I haven't bothered with those comparisons. Bottom Line: One guy is gonna be starting for the same team next season. The other is gonna be hoping to start somewhat else regardless of how he gets there. Is that not reasonable?

Nobody will accuse me of being a UNC homer, but I'd love to sign Howell too. I can imagine him having a Jake Delhomme style career path, i.e. spending a few years as an afterthought but proving to be better than expected if given a chance to play. (someone might point out that he came into the league with higher expectations than Jake did, but that doesn't matter at this point)

Hence, why smart teams look at player intelligence, maturity, work ethic, character, etc. It's reasonable to expect a guy who's a little older to be higher in those areas, but again Father Time is undefeated. You've theoretically gotta pick between a guy who may or may not take a little longer to catch on vs a guy who could catch on sooner but also may have a shorter career. One of about a thousand reasons I'm happy I don't have to make those decisions...

I'd point out there's a distinction to be made between hope in Bryce and hope for Bryce. I have plenty of hope for him. It's not exactly faith based though.

Emotional? Dude

Did his career winning percentage keep him from getting benched this year?

Russini is one of the best sources out there, but she's far from alone in that opinion. General belief Is that the Cardinals will try to trade him, but his contract makes it a hard sell barring an agreement to renegotiate. The more likely scenario is he'll be released. Speculation on which teams could see him as a starter doesn't produce many results.

Seriously, dude? And see above on the college thing. I don't "like" Bryce. I don't dislike Murray. I don't think either one is NFL starter quality. Now that said, one of them is going to be a starter next season and the other is likely to be looking for a job.

Not complaining college to pro. I use Chang as an example of the folly of stat driven analysis in football. You guys know I don't put huge stock in stats.

Dianna Russini has been reporting for a while now that he'll likely be let go. She (and others) don't really see many teams all that enthusiastic to give up anything for him via trade. And no, I don't see Murray as any sort of top performer. Honestly think he'll either be a perennial backup or out of the league within a few years.

Statistically speaking Timmy Chang is an NCAA legend. Likewise, if you go by stats then It can be argued that Sam Darnold and Trevor Lawrence are both better quarterbacks than Baker Mayfield right now. Would you accept that as fact? Football is just too complicated and team dependent a game to rely on stats as your top evaluation tool.

Yes, eye test. And you and I disagree on this. Murray will almost certainly be a free agent this offseason. Would you want the Panthers to pursue him? (I don't)

Understood, and lots of rookies at various positions need almost remedial training these days. There are guys who pick it up within a year or two though.