On Tarvaris Jackson as an NFL Quarterback
by pqlqi on Dec 27, 2011 7:25 AM PST
Email
Print
There has been a lot of chatter after this week’s loss to the ‘49ers about how Tarvaris Jackson does not have the awareness or ability to be an NFL QB. My gut instinct is that much of the response is reactionary to an emotionally draining loss in 1) a game we should have lost based on everything we knew about the teams before it started, 2) a game we had every chance in the world to win, and 3) a game that we gave away in every dimension; coaching, offense, defense, and special teams all failed to live up to our standards. Nonetheless, the reality is that Jackson also did not do enough to win the game; with just over 2 minutes left, Tarvaris was given the ball and the hopes and dreams of the 12s for the chance at another playoff miracle, and he failed to deliver. Twice.
We all know the two critical mistakes in the final 2 minutes: 1) not protecting the ball adequately on his 3rd and 3 scramble from a collapsing pocket, and 2) a bad throw vs throwaway in the direction of a wide open Zach Miller on 4th down with 13 seconds to go. He was not good enough to make up for unacceptable mistakes that occurred in the rest of the Hawks performance, or in his own performance earlier in the game. In the end though, it was just about the performance you'd expect from a slightly below average QB against the league's best scoring defense (points allowed).
Jackson’s weaknesses (attributed by us) have been covered in quite extensive detail by most of the regular contributors here at Fieldgulls (kudos for supplying me with my legal crack substitute), and many of us 12s have also had our say. I won’t go into detail on these limitations other to list them here, because we all have our own views of the severity of each facet of the game, his improvement/progression or lack thereof over the course of the season, and the potential for a QB to improve upon them with experience: pocket awareness, ball protection in the pocket and especially while scrambling (8 fumbles on the year seems low to me given how that ball just swings in the breeze when he is chased out of the pocket), receiver progression, open receiver identification, throwing from the back foot, and the oft-noted jump pass (which is in my opinion the last thing to worry about).
I’ve also heard bandied about the idea that Tarvaris Jackson has had ample opportunity to prove himself already, and he has failed to show any progression. There are certainly arguments for and against the limitations he has faced this season that may have retarded his progression regarding new teammates, bad OL to start the season, injuries on the OL in midseason, torn pectoralis, and significant inconsistency in health and performance at WR. Maybe at this point in the season, he should have overcome such challenges as his pec continues to improve, WRs have stepped up, and the OL has been improving as evidenced by the run game. As I have been digesting all these thoughts since the loss, I started to wonder "is it time to give up on Tarvaris Jackson as an NFL QB?" and decided to dig a little deeper into his past…
Tarvaris Jackson attempted 48 passes at Arkansas over the first two years of his college career before transferring to Alabama State, an FCS school. In three years at Alabama State as the starter, he posted completion percentages of 52%, 52%, and 61%, passing yards of 1984, 2562, and 2655, and a career TD/INT ratio of 63/23. He also rushed for over 200 yards each year and had a minimum of 3 RuTD/year.
Jackson was subsequently drafted with the 64th pick (last pick of the second round) by the Minnesota Vikings, who used two third-round picks to move up and make the selection. Notably, after the draft, Brad Childress said about Jackson’s college experience at Alabama State: "You're talking about a guy that never had a coach there as a quarterback coach." Not the best sentence structure from Coach Childress, but you get the point – Tarvaris Jackson was a very raw prospect.
In 2006, Jackson sat on the bench as a rookie behind Brad Johnson, but actually was chanted for by the home crowd near the end of the season due to Johnson’s poor play. He started the last two games of the season, two losses, to Green Bay and St. Louis (both teams finishing the season at 8-8). He attempted 81 passes as a rookie, completing 47 for 2 TD, but 4 INT.
In 2007, Jackson started 12 games and went 8-4 in Adrian Peterson’s rookie year, but the passing game was limited by a quite bad receiving corps, with Bobby Wade leading the team with 647 yards and Sidney Rice in a decent but limited rookie season, 31 receptions for 396 yards (one might argue that Wade was limited by TJax's play, but it ended up being Wade's most productive season in his short career). Backup QBs Kelly Holcomb and Brooks Bollinger started the remaining 4 games and went a combined 0 for 4. On the season, the Vikings were ranked 32nd in the league in pass attempts, with Tarvaris completing 171 of 294 (58.2%, 28.7 att/game). Jackson also had 2 game winning drives on the year.
In 2008, the Vikings added FA WR Bernard Berrian, a viable deep threat, but nearing the end of his high productivity years. Sidney Rice only started 3 games, hampered by injuries, and had a grand total of 15 receptions. Tarvaris lost the first two games of the season to the Packers and Indianapolis (who went on to 6-10 and 12-4 records, respectively), and was benched by Childress. Gus Frerotte was then named the starter for the next 11 games. Jackson came in for the injured Frerotte during game 13, and he led the Vikings to a 20-16 victory (with a TD pass to Shiancoe) over the soon to be 0-16 Detroit apocalypse of 2008.
Jackson would start the last 3 regular season games, going 2-1, before losing to the Eagles in the wild card round of the playoffs (Eagles had a top 5 defense that year and went to the NFC championship game, Tarvaris had a bad game, going 15 of 35 with 1 INT). On the season, Tarvaris had a 59% completion rate (same as Frerotte) with 9 TD and 2 INT (Frerotte had 12 TD, 15 INT). Jackson attempted fewer passes (149 on the season) and had fewer YPG than Gus, but had a much higher ANYA (6.4 vs 4.7). Jackson again had 2 game winning drives.
In 2009, the Vikings brought in long-coveted-by-Childress future HOFer Favre to start over Jackson, and subsequently had a NFC Championship-losing season, which is to say a resounding success. The Vikings added WR Percy Harvin in the draft. Of course, Tarvaris had no chance to compete against Favre to be the starter in 2009; Favre was on fire that year, passing for 4202 yards, a stunning 68.4% completion rate, 33 TD and 7 INT, perhaps the 2nd best season of Favre’s 20 year career. After the 2009 season, there was no chance in hell Favre wasn't going to be the starter again in 2010, unless he retired then un-retired and retired again, and Jackson was signed to be the backup again. The decision to bring in Favre was a win now philosophy, and not necessarily indicative of the Vikings having no faith in Jackson as a QB. In two years backing up Favre, Jackson had a whopping 79 pass attempts, completing 48, with 4 TD and 4 INT.
So it's not like Tarvaris had untold opportunity in Minnesota. Before Seattle, he was given 20 games as "the starter", 12 with Bobby Wade as his best receiver. His career record as a starter before coming to Seattle was 10-10. At this point, Tarvaris now has gone 17-16 in 33 starts in his career, with at least 2/3 of those games playing under far less than ideal circumstances (2 as a rookie with no quarterback coach in college, 12 as a second year player with an incredibly crappy receiving corps, and at least 8 this year where he was hamstrung by either a sieve-like OL or a pectoralis tear).
In his career (33 starts and limited action in 17 other games), Tarvaris has attempted only 1018 passes, completing 609 for a career completion rate of 59.3% (60.2% this season), 37 TD, 34 INT, 5.0 ANYA, and 4 game winning drives (all with the Vikings).
By comparison, in his 26 starts, former #1 draft pick Sam Bradford has amassed 8 wins and 18 losses, attempted 948 passes, completing 545 for a career completion rate of 57.6%, 24TD, 21INT, and 4.6 ANYA, and 1 GWD.
-
Obviously, statistics are subject to all sorts of biases based on surrounding components of the team, offensive scheme, etc. Yes, watching Tarvaris at the most important position on the team can be incredibly frustrating, especially when we can all see the pocket collapsing around him and the ball is hanging out like Favre’s "Little Smokie". He just doesn’t seem to have "it", whatever each of us thinks "it" might be. And there is no doubt in my mind that the FO will try to improve at QB like they are at every other position. But, Tarvaris Jackson did have 4 game winning drives in 20 starts in Minnesota.
He has performed remarkably similar to a #1 draft pick in different, but possibly equally difficult circumstances. If you think Sam Bradford has upside, if you can argue that similar number of pass attempts equates to similar game experience, and if Bradford played against superior competition and had the benefit of a QB coach in college, then maybe we can expect a little growth, and a little progression, and even a little more success from Tarvaris than just a slightly below average NFL starting QB. This is not an argument that Tarvaris is the QBOTF, but it is an argument that it is not clear that he can’t be…
-
Sources: Almost everything from www.pro-football-reference.com, a touch from Wikipedia.com.
428 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Tarvaris' 2011 Season with the Seahawks
bears striking resemblance to his career numbers. (Seattle: 60.2%, 13:12 TD-Int Ratio, 79.5 Rate; Career: 59.3%, 37:34 TD-Int Ratio, 77.8 Rate) This is the most striking evidence that he hasn’t improved as a passer in his time here.
You also mention game-winning drives. Tarvaris has been in four potential GWD situations, which is to say, an offensive possession down by one score with less than four minutes left: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Washington, and San Francisco. (Incidentally, all four of these games were at home) Needless to say, we know what the result of these four games was.
Your argument boils down to, “Bradford and Tarvaris have similar statistics over a similar number of attempts, and if you think Bradford might be good, why are you giving up on Tarvaris?” This is a good pitch. Some people will be tempted to argue that Bradford has been hampered by incessant injuries, or reprehensible offensive line play a la Tim Couch/David Carr (much as Tarvaris was early this season), or maybe that Bradford is a 24-year-old in his second season instead of a 28-year-old in his sixth. These arguments will all have some merit, but they’re not the truth. The truth is, you’re right in comparing their numbers, and Bradford is probably no good. Unlike Tarvaris, he still has some time to turn things around and (1) develop his talents further, (2) demonstrate that he can play a full season without injury, or (3) play on a better team. But right now, no reasonable team would look at Bradford and think he was a franchise quarterback. I wouldn’t want him, and while the Rams are invested enough in him to trade the #1 pick if they get it, and have some hope he may yet turn it around, I seriously doubt anyone over there is buying Bradford stock right now.
Ultimately, Tarvaris isn’t ‘done’ or ‘not an NFL quarterback.’ He is exactly what he always has been: a bad backup quarterback who might avoid tripping over his own feet long enough to let the rest of a good team win a game. A team hoping to get to the playoffs and win games there in 2012 and beyond cannot rely on Tarvaris as a quarterback, and anyone who had ever watched him play before 2011 probably knew that. If Pete and John want to go somewhere with this fantastic young team they’ve built, and money says they probably do, they’ll find their quarterback in April 2012, a year late but hopefully not too late.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 8:02 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
Nice take.
I think the potential for Bradford when playing on a better team (as you say) is a significant factor in the comparison. TJax was playing on a pretty good Vikings team for a number of those starts, with a shut-down defense, and AP to keep the opposition honest. Hard to see much upside on him from here.
Yes, Bradford has Steven Jackson to hand off to, but their defense has been a sieve for a long time. I also think the Seahawks provide a better supporting cast all around than the Rams do.
It was just intense, and it was ball, and it was juice. The juice level in that room was high, and it was awesome.
by mister bunny on Dec 27, 2011 9:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Totally disagree with the conclusion
Those career numbers (prior to this year) encompass 20 starts over 4 seasons, with the only significant stretch of games started in 2007, when he was a second-year player. That isn’t to say that they have no merit, only to say that they lack context, which the original poster tried to provide.
Not that anyone wants to hear it right now, but I’m fairly sure that the Seahawks can win plenty with Jackson as their quarterback. As someone lists down below, there are a lot of terrible quarterbacks out there: the Jets went to the AFC championship game the last two years with Mark Sanchez, and he’s worse than Jackson.
Investing significant resources in QB (either via draft, trade, or FA) prevents us from using those resources in other ways (Marshawn, a pass rushing end, etc.). Jackson has the benefit of being a league-average QB (this year, by DVOA) at way below league average cost. Is he the long-term answer? Probably not. Can this team win with him? Well, they just won 5 of 6, so maybe they can.
I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little
That streak includes the Rams and Bears.
Can we stop referencing the streak, both of those teams are very, very bad.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Dec 27, 2011 9:48 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
It's an empty streak, the quality of opponent matters.
And, using wins to judge a QB is beyond stupid anyway.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
Winning games against bad teams is still an accomplishment
Or are you forgetting that the Saints lost to the Rams, the Packers lost to the Chiefs, and the Patriots lost to the Bills?
You can’t discount any wins, or you’re just taking everything out of context. Seattle has a pretty decent strength of schedule, and winning 5 out of any 6 against NFL teams is damn good.
We all know where you stand on Tarvaris. I never said 7 - 9 or 8 - 8 was good.
However, if winning 5 of 6 doesn’t make you feel that he’s at least an acceptable stopgap, it’s clear that nothing less than a ring with Tarvaris at the helm will convince you otherwise.
by HititHere on Dec 27, 2011 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
He could start with putting together a decent season.
Winning five of six was nice, but they play 16 games total.
In all honesty, I think he's had a decent season. Am I satisfied? No way. But if we come away 8 - 8 in this rebuilding year...
And Tarvaris has completed 60% of his passes, with more TDs than INTs, and something like 6 or 7 Y/A…. well, ok, that’s decent to me. Especially if he beats the Cards, then he’s looking at an 8 – 6 QB record.
by HititHere on Dec 27, 2011 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The funny thing is that Tarvaris might do better without competition.
If he’s determined the starter, with all of the first team reps, for an entire off-season compared to bringing in somebody like Brady Quinn (please God no, and the insinuations gross me out) and having doubt or having Jackson look over his shoulder.
It might be better to bring in someone that you flat out say will sit for a year (Jake Locker in Tennessee for instance) and have no doubt about who the starter is, give Jackson a full calender year to prove himself.
I’ve advocated for Brandon Weeden as a mid-round selection, but I still think that’s a pick where you can say “Weeden, you are not the starter yet” unless he just outplays the shit out of Jackson. Or any prospect for that matter.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
I would be terrified if we got Weeden
We’d be drafting a QB who is 6 months younger than our starter.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
Well he probably has less
But he did play 5 years in minor league baseball.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
How many pitches in a game?
How many games in a season, was he starter?
374 innings
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=weeden001bra
Not a baseball fan so I wouldn’t know too much beyond his numbers.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
Good thing "avoiding walks" isn't considered a critical QB skill.
The high walks might mean pass accuracy concerns if you really wanted to extrapolate that, and you really shouldn’t.
He actually had to abandon his baseball career because of a torn labrum and rotator cuff tendonitis.
He says his football throwing motion doesn’t doesn’t affect his injuries, supposedly. Link.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 28, 2011 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
I could believe that.
If he could still hit 70 on the gun without pain, maybe throwing a football just doesn’t torque his arm all that much.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Pitching a baseball is one of the worst, most unnatural movements the human body can endure, no matter at what level you play.
There’s no telling how much doing that for 5 years will actually affect his QB play, but it shouldn’t be dismissed entirely.
Even pitchers with the prettiest, nicest mechanics are liable to completely blow up their arms/shoudlers
Hello, Mark Prior.
I thought there was something about Mark Prior's mechanics that scouts hated?
I didn’t pay attention to that kind of thing back then, so I’d have no idea.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 28, 2011 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
He was held up as the golden standard of pitching mechanics
Beautiful delivery, easy motion. And then he blew up.
Exactly.
In all fairness though, I’m somewhat convinced it’s because he played for the Cubs.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
My curve ball is pretty unnatural. Lot of wrist/elbow torque.
Not too bad on the shoulder though…
Seriously though, I now pretty much only pitch in softball because I coached 4 years of frosh baseball, and 300 BP pitches 3 times a week destroyed what was left of my arm after my competitive playing career was over.
I used to have a strong arm, not great, but solid. Now I can’t hardly throw overhand without pain, and I never did anything “specific” to destroy it. Just wear and tear. Anyone who doesn’t think pitching is hard on the body is blind or an idiot.
Dammit. My shoulder just started throbbing from just thinking about ever pitching BP again.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So yeah, you just proved my point above.
Pitching a baseball is fucking dangerous, and everyone who criticized Erik Bedard for only going 100 pitches can go fuck themselves.
by Benne on Dec 30, 2011 8:51 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Loved Bedard here, and wish him well. I always thought he was a class guy.
Real answers, not cliches, loyal to a fault. People’s problem with Bedard wasn’t with him, it was with the bald village idiot, Bavasi.
Oh, also of note, I coached Danny Duffy as a freshman. His varsity coach had no problem pushing starters pitch counts way up. He’s a great kid, but it will be interesting to see what happens as his career progresses.
As a frosh I threw him 130 pitches one game. Sounds crazy high, but it was a tourney, I had nobody else, he wasn’t laboring, just playing catch, and I asked his dad first, Dad said “keep him in. he isn’t laboring and feels fine.” Plus, he wasn’t allowed to throw curveballs that game (and I kept the frosh on a curve count anyway), only fastballs and a change— so it was an “easy” pitch count.
I don’t believe in a magic number. I’ve had kids labor after 50, and others who could throw all day without negative consequence. It all depends on the arm and the circumstance.
Anyway… interesting digression here.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
You really dated yourself here, Whiskey :)
by Matt Erickson on Dec 31, 2011 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
Danny Duffy is 17 days younger than me!
by Matt Erickson on Dec 31, 2011 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
Funny, I don't feel that old, either.
But yeah, it was a while ago…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 31, 2011 1:55 AM PST up reply actions
You haven't watched much softball, have you?
Those girls have more wild motions than the average deadball pitcher.
I was asking which one is worse for the body.
I was impressed by how unnatural it looked.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about upgrades as much as I'm talking about "well, he MIGHT be better than Jackson"
Get your QBOTF, or a proven veteran that should definitely start.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think the reps or lack thereof would make any difference.
I think the level of performance of the offense around him would.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 27, 2011 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
IOW, you think TJack will be better off if handed his starter role just like this year.
Well, hopefully the FO sees things differently after Carroll had given his unconditional support to Jackson this season and watched him choke up 4 potential game winning drives that made the difference in the season.
None of us wants to suffer through that again and would rather not risk experimenting with what you “think will be better for Tarvaris”.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
We're citing "QB wins"? On Field Gulls?
Right, sorry, what I mean is: 8-6? If you’re not counting Cincy, then you shouldn’t count NYG either.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I really didn't mean to do that. In context, it was more in regards to Nate citing 7 - 9 or 8 - 8 as a bad season
And I’m more or less saying that Jackson wasn’t even starting for 2 of the losses, which makes the whole thing seem more palatable, but yeah, you’re right… can’t count Cincy or NYG if we’re going that route.
This place has changed a bit in the last year.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Dec 27, 2011 6:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
You are correct, sadly
Though it’s not fair to single out HititHere as such here.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What do you think happened?
It feels like overnight the level of discourse has gone down dramatically? At the risk of sounding ungrateful, I do wonder if the standards for what can be published were a bit higher we might see corresponding increase in the quality of the threads. The broken window/graffiti theory of sorts. People see a certain standard is acceptable by those in charge, you set the tone.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Dec 27, 2011 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I said that would happen months ago
It’s a natural process. If you offer a different type of writing you attract a different kind of people, and encourage a different type of discourse. There is no way to keep the FG commentary on the level it was when all that was posted was cerebral analysis, it just doesn’t happen.
I’m not sure what you mean by quality though. Occasional exceptions aside, I think qualitatively speaking most articles on this site are still pretty good.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 4:35 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
As an old coach used to say to me, "Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back"
If you want to raise it, then challenge bad arguments and force posters/writers to make good logical arguments. You may get a warning for saying that an article is emotional vomit and doesn’t contain a good argument, but if you say it nicely you will get away with it and at least you will have made your point. Saying weren’t we great once doesn’t accomplish squat.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
by stufr on Dec 28, 2011 5:28 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
I don't think i'ts needed to embarass or insult anyone to make my point.
I’m speaking of the opinion/ serious articles were lacking, imo. I don’t have a problem with any of the humor pieces,
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
A few of us are working our asses off on this website and it's grown quite a bit this year.
When it’s a bad thing to see something you’re actually putting daily blood and sweat into get bigger and more popular, we’ll stop.
I’m at a loss over the fact this conversation stemmed from the mere mention of a QB W-L record that HitItHere immediately backed away from.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 28, 2011 7:28 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Presumably because it's something some of us have noticed before
And Steen thought this an opportune moment to bring it up. I personally don’t find it worth complaining about, and barely worth discussing. We all knew this blog’s content would change with John gone, and with changed content come changes to the community. Unless Steen has specific points to bring up, I suppose.
Also, my personal view is not that bigger is better. Though I assume bigger is certainly one of Danny’s goals. But I don’t see traffic increases as goals, nor do as validation. Thing is, especially in the sportscasting world, bigger is usually the antithesis of better. Pro Football Talk is a big blog. That’s not something I’d want to emulate. High quality content and traffic aren’t exactly antithetical, but they are at odds at times.
Just pointing out we put a lot of work into this blog, because we do, doesn’t really influence Steen’s particular criticism. He’s not calling anyone lazy.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 8:04 AM PST up reply actions
A Seahawks-specific blog is not going to grow to the point of PFT. A community of larger size in this format, is manageable.
They do it at Lookout Landing, with a community that can self-police itself with ease, though it gets a little harsh at times over there.
If Steen has seen the comment quality at other SBN blogs, he’d know how good things are over here.
That’s about as much as I find it necessary to say in a public forum.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 28, 2011 8:25 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I didn't say PFT was the goal, just that PFT is evidence of why "we're bigger now" isn't any kind of validation in my view
I suppose we’re bigger, but we’re not better.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 8:26 AM PST up reply actions
I think the comment sections are better
A lot more open thought and different view points. Discussions happen and yes because its bigger explaining the falacy of passer rating or W-L for a QB will happen more than before, but that shouldn’t be a big deal. Group think is gone, which is always good.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Both comments and writers are more diverse now
That’s the major strength of this Field Gulls, with thanks to Danny.
But as you say, everything is a tradeoff. I’m not so sure it’s better, though the lack of groupthink is nice. It’s not so nice when it’s replaced by Mt Stupid though (exaggeration for effect).
Anyway, introspection is almost always good, as long as you don’t go overboard, so conscious thoughts on how and what you publish and how you try to massage the community into shape are a-ok.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 8:40 AM PST up reply actions
Size can be measured in fact, quality is measured in opinion.
And no opinion, whether we are better, the same or worse, is wrong.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 28, 2011 8:53 AM PST up reply actions
The fact that it can be measured doesn't really give it any meaning
I could measure the amount of words we put out now too, or stories, and I think both beat the output a year ago. But they’re all meaningless to this current dialog.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 8:57 AM PST up reply actions
It would be great to emulate LL
But they have the vast majority of content coming from Jeff and Matthew, do they not? Also, I think the threads there are dramatically better, fwiw. I’m not saying there is a link between the two, just my observation.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
I think a huge key there is, whenever Jeff or Matthew say anything remotely funny in the threads, it needs to be green'd 43 times.
And it’s just way too snarky.
That is not to dig at them, I enjoy the articles, I just mostly and generally shy away from the comments.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
It gets a lot harsh over there at times.
Often.
I rarely venture to comment there, and abandoned the comment threads at USSM entirely. Not worth my time.
The standards we have here are obviously higher than much of the NFL/SB Nation, as we routinely see when rival fans come for a visit (or a drive by.) I ENJOY that we aren’t all so stuffy here, but we do police ourselves within what I think is a reasonable level.
Yes, the blog has shifted in the past year. Change is natural and inherent. And the money/economic forces behind the scenes absolutely have forced much of this change. But I think overall, it has been good.
My only gripe is that there is so much content I can’t always keep up. But I do enjoy that I can pop in any particular day and see a couple of great articles that queue my interest.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I like that Dave and Derek tried strict commenting guidelines (complete with an orientation post)
And they still gave it up as a lost cause. Way too many trolls from Baker’s blog to manage it.
Same with the Fangraphs comments. Dear god, I swear they’re dumber then the Yahoo peanut gallery.
The Fangraphs comments crack me up. So anti-Dave anti-M's.
Yeah, complete shit-show there.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 10:19 PM PST up reply actions
We, the writers/mods, as well as the community probably needs to do a better job of self-policing
Of course, we also need to decide what kind of a community we want to be. Are we the community that accepts, without refutation, things like QB rating and QB win/loss record as valid metrics, or are we going to encourage people to look beyond superficial numbers like that? We’ve trended towards the former over the last year or so.
by BrianL on Dec 28, 2011 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I think we need someone to put up a post or two in the offseason about what are valid and what are invalid metrics and why
It would educate and when people who aren’t here much use them you have a handy like to use instead of having to re-explain the same thing.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
thats link not like
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
I've done this before, it hasn't gone over well.
Given the flak myself and others have taken over pointing out the issues with QB Rating, I’m unlikely to write another post on bad metrics.
Didn't it?
We linked back to your article on QBRating a lot, and I don’t think it steadily came up for discussions here, or comes up still. But it’s being more widely recognized as a useless stat now.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 8:43 AM PST up reply actions
I don't really feel the need to defend myself, I'd just like to point out that I know why QB W-L is a useless stat.
I’ve been here since the beginning of last season, so I’m not exactly brand new or anything, and I’m I’m all for improving the quality of FG.
The simple “it used to be better ::FROWN::” doesn’t get us anywhere, though.
What a discussion I started. Sheesh.
Not my intention to attack, since I think your thought got convoluted around in the middle of that string somewhere
My thought was just that it is easier and less attacking to be able to say:
I disagree with your argument because I think using that stat to say that is flawed. Please see link.
It would just be easier than re-writing the same thought everytime something comes up.
I don’t think NFL stats are solid enough to say that one is always bad or good. Overall when trying to use one or two stats to sum up an individual player, you will be in trouble, since any individual’s performance is highly dependent on not only his team, but the opposing team.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
I totally agree with that thought. Seems like we're all pretty much on the same page here.
Good talk, guys. Next pitcher’s on me.
Unless there's solid improvements to suggest, the whole "used to be better" thing is indeed kind of useless.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
Go ahead and chalk 5 of those 6 wins up to the running game.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
There is a large area between where Tavaris is and Brees or Rodgers is.
No one wins anything of consequence with an “acceptable stop gap”. He needs to be jettisoned ASAP, and replaced with someone better if we’re are to win anything at all.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Dec 27, 2011 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If Tarvaris could be as good as Flacco, would that be acceptable?
or Orton, Cutler, Palmer, or Freeman? Because TJax is better than the last 4 according to DYAR and DVOA. He is only marginally worse than Flacco in DYAR and actually is better in DVOA.
Yes the gap up to the best 2 QBs is quite high, but demanding the jettisoning ASAP any QB who does not perform as well as Rodgers or Brees is dropping the “level of discourse” on this site dramatically, and will result in a waterfall of QBs who will never learn the system or their teammates well enough to succeed in any acceptable way.
It is unfair, and frankly quite comical, for you complain about the level of discourse and then make absolutivistic (made up word) statements like the above.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
by pqlqi on Dec 27, 2011 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The problem is that the QB's you cite all have higher upside than TJack
with the possible exception of Orton, but I would still take Orton over TJack based on what he did last year with Denver, although not spectacular still mountains better than what TJack can do.
The rest of the QB’s you cited have demonstrated to be far better QB’s over the course of their careers than this year has indicated. That’s the difference and Tarvaris doesn’t even deserve mention with them until he can show himself as having a competent season.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
That, plus they're all asked to do more than Jackson.
At least, that’s my impression.
Who is to define their upside as higher?!?!?
I think TJack has more upside than Orton and Palmer due to age. Freeman has looked good but performed terribly this year when he was supposed to take a step up. Why should I assume that is the anomaly and not the prior performance? And Cutler? Well, okay. I like Cutler. But he hasn’t exactly proven dependable in two stops in the NFL.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not a big fan of Flacco.
I think you can win with him, but 2 min drill, ball in his hands to win it? I don’t want Flaco, he’s not a guy that can win the game by himself consistently. That is the rough standard for i want in our next QB. Flaco is a high end complimentary piece.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
He pulled off a pretty good 2 min drill against the Steelers this year.
Not saying that completely refutes your point, just the first thing that popped into my head.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 28, 2011 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
This isn't a dichotomy
You don’t either discount or fully count wins. Each win and loss comes with its own context. Over the entire NFL, this gets too complicated for any one person to keep track of. But we’re Seahawks fans, we know our team, and we know which wins were significant and which were less so.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
The Jets never won with Mark Sanchez
They won because he happened to be there.
Basically to win with TJax we need a top 5 defense and top 5 running game and no more than 20 passes per game.
He’s going to be 29 by the start of next season. If he can’t get it now then he’ll never be a starting-level QB.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2011 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
Bashing Sanchez is an in thing to do, not unjustifiably
but it’s not the whole story. Yes, in three years, Sanchez is 55.1%, 53:48, 73.4 Rate, 6.5 YPA, or, yes, worse than Tarvaris. But in six playoff games, he’s 60.5%, 9:3, 94.3 Rate, 7.6 YPA, with wins over the Chargers, Colts, Patriots, and Steelers. Small sample size and all that, and he didn’t do any of it by himself, but it’s unfair to say the jets won these particular games because he happened to be there. The regular season is admittedly a different thing. But I do think this is a strong argument that on the whole, Sanchez is not worse than Jackson.
Winning 5 of 6 is not the same thing as winning in the playoffs. And, as you note, Tarvaris has had his shots and isn’t that guy. If this front office wants to win, they need to get their guy, and I think pretty much everyone knows it.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
The problem with your argument is that as bad as Sanchez has been ...
due to his playoff performance and his relative youth he still has more upside than TJack.
And that makes all the difference in the world as to whether a GM decides to hang on with what they’ve got or throw in the towel.
TJack has not demonstrated an ability to improve despite this being his 6th year in the league. Whatever upside he might have is so negligible it’s not worth talking about.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
This is nonsense
Playoff games are not inherently a better predictor of future performance than regular season games. Plus Sanchez’s playoff performance has been greatly overstated. He had one good game in 2009 (the Wild Card game @ Cincinnati), but even that was only 15 passes, against a decent defense. The next game he was terrible against the Chargers, and the team won anyhow, and then he was mediocre against an average Indy defense.
In 2010, he was awful against a bad Indy D (but the team won anyhow), and then played a very good game against a mediocre Patriots D. He was also good against a very good Steelers D, which was impressive (though not enough to win the game).
So basically we have a guy who’s been average or worse in the regular season, and had a couple of good (and a couple of bad) playoff games. Yes, he was a high first round pick, and the possibility exists that he can improve, but I don’t know that I’d agree with your statement that he clearly has more upside than Tarvaris. At this point in their careers, Tarvaris has played 4 more games (but started 13 less) than Sanchez.
Aging curves are hard to predict, and saying that a guy has more upside just because he’s younger is, well, stupid.
Think again
by Sportszilla on Dec 28, 2011 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Just for argument sake
Based on the skills that he shows on film, not on his numbers, I think he is a lot better than that, but never will be on the Jets/w/Rex Ryan as a coach.
He is never allowed to get in a rythem or test out the defense to learn their tendancies and be ready to exploit them. They play defense and run the ball and tell him not to screw up, until the end of the game when they need him to pass then they say throw it. They have terrible game plans which don’t use all their weapons. Its a defense oriented risk averse coaching philosophy. I think if he gets on to a real team here in a couple of years, or Rex finally gets fired, his numbers will jump up dramatically, because the talent is there. He might not be HOF, but he should be better than he has shown thus far.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
That's a horse and cart question
Most QBs who aren’t allowed to pass at will and get creative aren’t allowed so because the FO doesn’t trust them to.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 2:22 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not arguing that Sanchez is fantastic because he's not, just that he's light years ahead of Tarvaris ...
if you’re not convinced then why not take into account the fact that this year Mark Sanchez had FOUR 4th quarter comebacks and FOUR game winning drives while Tarvaris Jackson had NONE and was ofer 4 in that category? Mark Sanchez also led the league in game winning drives last year with SIX.
So however you might have a hard time understanding why Sanchez has more upside than TJ, I think one need only look at the relatively new statistic of 4QC and GWD’s to determine that Sanchez has far more ‘IT’ factor than TJack does … period.
When I refer to Tim Ruskell as "Tranny Tim" I do so ONLY in reference to his infamous use of the "Transition Tag", nothing more & nothing less. Some rather thick and uptight petty tyrants that unfortunately moonlight as fieldgull blog writers have threatened me over its use using a popup I was unable to respond to. I find such free speech censure offensive and ridiculous.
How is Sanchez ligth years ahead of Jackson?
Jackson 50 games (not all starts)
77.8 QBR
1018 Attempts,
Y/A 6.7
59.3%
1.088 TD to Int ratio
DYAR 476
DVOA 5.5%
Sanchez
46 games
73.4 QBR
1382 attempts
55.1%
6.5 Y/A
1.1 TD to INT ratio
DYAR 290
DVOA -2.9%
So in more opportunities Sanchez pretty much is behind Jackson in almost every category, and barely above in the one category (TD to INT)
This is in no way to say TJ is the best QB ever, but honestly he has performed just under Hasslebeck in DYAR, (485 ), and above him in in DVOA (4.5%) and hasslebeck had a far supperior offensive line .
Jackson is 18th in DYAR, and 17th in DVOA. He is clearly performing as an average QB behind a terrible Oline, but with the benifit of a strong run game.
by Oliudyen on Dec 30, 2011 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Mark Sanchez would have less game-winning drives if the Jets had a QB that kept them from being in 4th quarter holes.
He is not a good quarterback. He is just a quarterback. He’d be the starter on the Seahawks maybe, but he’d be a backup on most teams.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 30, 2011 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not at all sold he would beat Tavaris out.
Not at all.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
When you get benched twice
For Gus Frerotte and a 39-year-old Brett Favre, then you’re not good.
Minnesota knew they needed a better QB to contend and that’s why they signed Favre. Jackson had a home playoff game against a team whose QB didn’t know a game could end in a freaking tie, and he put up a horrendous performance.
For Seattle to properly rebuild or contend, they cannot do this resurrection crap yet again like they tried to do with BMW. Whether 2012 or 2013, they need a proper QB out of the draft.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2011 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And how do you suppose they do that?
With our draft position, we have such a low possibility of getting a “proper QB” out of this draft without trading the farm. We can get a “project QB”, and I have no doubt we will.
by sonse7en on Dec 27, 2011 12:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Joe Flacco, Josh Freeman, Aaron Rodgers, etc etc etc
Were taken around 17-20s in the first round, where our pick is likely to be (if not higher). Why is this a bad place to take a quarterback? Just because popular consensus doesn’t name him among the “chosen elite” for the year doesn’t mean popular consensus is correct. Our scouting department might know a thing or two that Mel Kiper and Walter Cherepinsky don’t.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
Andy Dalton (albeit in a special situation) fell to their lap in the 2nd round
And he’s performing well for a rookie.
It’s like we know we need a QB but are afraid of the potential consequences of drafting a shitty one.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
2 of your 3 examples come with huge question marks
And for every one of them, there’s 10 Brady Quinn’s. Drafting a project QB in the first round doesn’t automagically make him a proper QB. It means you probably reached, and he’s not making an impact next year anyways.
by sonse7en on Dec 28, 2011 1:13 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Use it all the time at work.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 29, 2011 5:40 PM PST up reply actions
Wow. Great catch. I missed that.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
Who are "Etc Etc Etc" for I could name an awful lot of QB's taken in the same range who haven't turned out.
And right now Freeman appears to have regressed significantly from last year, in addition to “leading” a team that essentially gave up on its coach and fell apart this year.
Joe Flacco? Jury is most certainly out. Tavaris is at least comparable, without wasting the 1st rounder.
Aaron Rodgers was a HUGE win, but the 2nd best QB in the draft that year, and there was some debate he would have gone 1st overall. That was a fluke fall to end up in the low 20’s.
I trust our Front Office to get a QB there if one fits. But to assume the slotting is either good or bad is irrelevant.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
Minor aside: Flacco's stats are much, much better than Tavaris's.
Almost 3000 yards his first year, over 3000 in the next three. Roughly a 3/2 TD/INT ratio. One missed game.
And a year younger than Tavaris.
I know. But, he's still not a guy that Baltimore (or the world at large) is sold on...
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 31, 2011 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
I just don't get that argument about the benchings...
Childress had a man crush on Favre for years, and finally got the chance to bring him in. 39 year old Brett Favre in 2009 was at least the 4th best starting QB in the league (9th in yards, 2nd in TDs, 1st in INTS, 3rd in completion rate, 2nd in passer rating, and 3rd in ANY/A). Favre lost the NFC championship on a bad interception only after his ankle had been broken on a low hit that should have been, but was not, flagged as a personal foul, and after AP fumbled the ball away in the second half.
By your argument, if you are not better than the a guy playing well enough to be the 4th best QB in the league after your first 20 starts, then you will never be a good QB. That just makes no sense at all.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
by pqlqi on Dec 27, 2011 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The problem with your argument is that if TJack had been doing his job, Favre would not have been so sought after ...
There’s a reason why Childress chose to pursue Favre. It didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because he and the rest of Minnesota saw what we Seahawk fans endured this season watching him … a guy with poor field vision, who holds onto the ball too long, has no feeling of pocket presence, locks onto his receivers, and generally can’t finish drives.
If TJack had been doing his job and showing potential and gradual improvement, Childress would have stuck with him, as any Minnesota fan can tell you he had a man crush on Tarvaris too until the guy’s many deficiencies that I’ve listed here caused him and the rest of the team’s fans to lose faith.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
I disagree.
“If TJack had been doing his job and showing potential and gradual improvement, Childress would have stuck with him..”
The problem with Minnesota and Tavaris is he was put into the fire too quickly then they wanted immediate results to boot. There was never an opportunity for “gradual improvement” because they were in “win now” mode with an aging though still effective at that time offensive (and defensive) lines.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Pretty sure TJack doesn't make less than league average for a QB.
And if he does, I’ve very sure it’s not way below.
He's very near the bottom of the starting QB salary list
You can compare him to all the rookies if you want, also, but the 4 mil/year he’s owed really is what you give to a backup QB. There is basically no way you’re going to get ANY QB in free agency for less than that.
So what's your point?
He doesn’t deserve starter money because when it comes down to it … he’s not a starting QB in this league.
It’s not like the club can’t afford a more competent player at the game’s most important position.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Yes, but that doesn't mean he makes signficantly less than league average for the position.
I could be wrong on this though, I don’t know how to find the numbers for all of the QB contracts.
That's a $2 million base salary.
Jackson signed a 2-year, $8 million contract. He has 6 million in base salary and $2 million in bonuses. His cap hit is 3.25 this year and 4.75 next year.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
Huh, well with bonuses and everything it's hard to lock down what league average is.
I still think, including rookies and everything, he’s right about average or maybe a bit below. But that’s picking nits I suppose.
His base is $2 million, but he had a signing bonus
of 1.5 million and a roster bonus of 500K. Next year his base salary is 4 million, and there were about 1 million of incentives for each season. I don’t think any of next year’s $4 million is guaranteed.
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2011/08/26/mcintyre-a-closer-look-at-hawks-contracts-2/
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
How does investing resources in QB prevent the team from retaining Marshawn?
That makes no sense. The Hawks are comfortably under the cap. It’s not an either or conundrum.
Furthermore, seeing as to how QB is the position of most dire need and it’s not even close, it would be negligent for the FO not to address such a vital hole in pursuit of plugging a far less serious hole.
The team won in spite of him, and never because of him. As pointed out, he choked during four potential game winning drives. Being responsible for 4 losses and no wins in that situations i unacceptable for any starting QB. Being competent enough to go 50% on those drives makes this team a playoff contender.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Ok, but if they had a better pass rush
Maybe they’re not in a position to need to come back in some of those games. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Also, saying that “QB is the position of most dire need and it’s not even close” is just wrong. As I’ve mentioned any number of times, the utter lack of a pass rush has hurt this team more than the quarterback play, and it’s made all the more galling because the other aspects of the defense have been so good. Add a second pass-rusher to this team and we’re likely talking a top 5 defense next year (usual regression/injury caveats apply).
While Tarvaris has struggled at times this year, he’s also outplayed any number of supposedly better quarterbacks. Of course the team could upgrade at the position, but there are probably 20 other teams that could say the same. Doesn’t mean they all can, or should.
My point wasn’t exactly that upgrading QB and keeping Marshawn are mutually exclusive, it’s that all the resources come out of the same pot, so if you go after a QB, you’re losing out somewhere else.
Think again
by Sportszilla on Dec 28, 2011 10:46 AM PST up reply actions
I'd be interested in hearing how the pass rush has hurt the team more than quarterback play.
And also how you would fix it, since a big part of the pass rush problem is Red Bryant. Most people are willing to just jettison him, so you’re most likely talking about a rotational player being the solution and that seems like a stretch. If you are willing to replace him, then the cost of a draft pick and Red likely outweighs the cost of a draft pick(s) plus TJack.
Assume you mean "aren't" instead of "are" in second body sentence.
Would we really say that Red is “a big part of the pass rush problem”? Are you coming from the perspective that all D-linemen are expected to rush the QB?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Yeah, most people aren't willing to get rid of Red.
All defensive linemen are expected to rush the passer but that’s not really what I mean. Seattle is a 4-3 that rushes three nose tackles on most plays, that makes it incredibly hard to get pressure on the QB. As a defensive end, Bryant is a big liability against the pass. He’s also part of the reason teams have so much success rolling out against Seattle, Bryant isn’t able to catch quarterbacks on one one.
Most QB's are junk
Look at the long list of former rookie franchise QB’s that are now on the recycle bin. In addition to Bradford, we could include Leihart, Mark Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Kevin Kolb and too many more to list. The fact is if you lose two games in a row in this league you are a wasted draft pick. There is no guarantee that Andrew Luck will not be the next bust at the QB position. If you can stay healthy and don’t embarrass the whole team with your performance (ie, Hanie) then you are probably go enough to manage the team on the field. The longer a guy starts the more he becomes accepted as the QBOTF. Nobody like Hasselbeck prior to 2005, either. The book on Hasselbeck was that he was a game manager that wasn’t good enough to get his team to a Super Bowl.
If you lose two in a row, you're a wasted draft pick?
I think history clearly proves you wrong here.
by MattoB on Dec 27, 2011 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Drew Brees
After a disappointing start to the 2003 season he was replaced by 5-10, 180 lbs Doug Flutie. Drew Brees was all done in the league. San Diego had lost all confidence in him. He started in 2004 and won the comeback player of the year award. After a good 2005 season, they still had no confidence in him and he left for New Orleans as a free agent in 2006. Perceptions are everything. Staying healthy, he was able to overcome all of the doubters.
by Patches Pal on Dec 27, 2011 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
This doesn't prove what you're saying, though.
Brees had a torn labrum, a horrible injury for anyone paid to throw something. San Diego was rightfully leery of how he would perform after he recovered. This is results based analysis, the Chargers process was sound at the time.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
I think he failed to use the sarcasm font, and was referring
to the Not-For-Long nature of the league.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Carson palmer was a damn good QB before his injury.
And I seem to remember Matt being pretty well thought of after his 2003 season.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
Tavaris is not Bradford.
Age, Pedigree, and Potential all matter.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Dec 27, 2011 9:44 AM PST via mobile reply actions
If he tucks the ball we probobly win that game.
Seems pretty correctable to me. Dude has a good arm and can really take a beating. Sure PC/JS are gonna be looking all over the place for another quarterback but I’m not seeing a clear cut replacement available. Hoping for a much improved T-Jax, I guess.
by WesCAttle on Dec 27, 2011 10:41 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Sorry, after six years in the league ... he's demonstrated that it's not correctable.
if he hasn’t figured it out by now, it strongly indicates how limited his upside and learning curve.
The kid has such a poor football IQ and that fact is demonstrated repeatedly throughout the season. Let another team try and “correct” his mental game, which a competent QB would have figured out long ago. He just doesn’t have the instincts or the IQ to play the position.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
This is ridiculous.
He does NOT have a “poor football IQ.”
Just in the last game - Great example- busted play when Marshawn stopped thinking we had a movement procedure, he booked for the end zone and didn’t quite get in. But a lot of players would have simply crumped there. He quickly tried to make the best of a bad situation. That’s good, not bad football IQ.
Also, he throws the ball out of bounds and away from defenders often when nothing good develops. Too many QB’s throw a pick where he chooses to minimize the damage. He makes solid decisions, but also is willing to hit narrow windows when the opportunity is there.
The biggest issue I see is that he lacks some spatial awareness. He doesn’t always sniff the guy coming up behind him. It was what happened on the fumble, and it is what happens on sacks. But there are worse things from a QB. I’d rather he take a few too many sacks (while also evading them frequently using his strength and athleticism) than having him throw coverage pics.
He’s not “a kid” and he doesn’t have “poor football IQ”… he has a gap in his performance— and it’s one that can, for the most part be remedied by better play of his teammates. That’s a workable weakness in my eyes.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Great example should not be strike-through.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
Perhaps.
Tough to say though, isn’t it? I wonder how much of that is coaching him to do so if he isn’t certain as well…
Regardless, I’m not buying el80ne’s hatefest on Tavaris, nor his negative connotations about Tavaris’ ability and intelligence.
Do I think he’s great? No. Do I think he’s peaked? No. Can he be an all-pro? I don’t believe so. But he’s what we’ve got right now, and that’s what a bridge QB should be.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 31, 2011 1:59 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If the team isn't letting him take chances, there's a reason for that.
I’m not sure exactly why, but I’d guess that it’s because Pete doesn’t want turnovers and Tavaris just doesn’t appear to have enough awareness on the field to take risks.
You can almost see the thought process going on: drop back, take a look at one guy, MAYBE another, and if it’s not there, fling it away.
It is, because we can't see what's going on downfield so we don't know whether guys are open or not.
His inability to throw timing routes has been talked about quite a bit though. And there are also times when he throws it away instead of buying himself more time by moving in the pocket.
I can understand people's hate of spacial awareness
I really think he is better than he gets credit for, after all he has more spacial awarness than Seneca Wallace, remember how he used to run out of bounds for a loss of 7 often, instead of throwing it away?
Also in the last month he hasnt thrown an INT, remember all the game ending INTs hasslebeck used to throw?
The fact is many of the people down on TJ want elite top level talent, something that usually doesnt come around often. I cant think of anyone who doesnt want one. problem is only a few are around at any one time. If that is what you want, you may be waiting a really long time.
If you want a Hasselbeck 2.0 or any other gunslinger, most likely you will have to wait until PC is fired, cause while he is happy to utilize his talent, he does not want a Favre type gunslinger.
Are you calling Hasselbeck a gunslinger?
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 5:06 AM PST up reply actions
Yes im calling him a gun slinger
Not in the Tactical missle sense but in the .22 typer rifle sense.
Maybe BB Gun.
But he certainly had a way with throwing interceptions in possible game winning drives.
I used to curse to no end about him throwing “nail in the coffin” INTs. He always moved us down the field though, just ended badly more than good.
In this example
If Tjax would of kept his eyes down field while scrambling for the end zone, he would of seen the CB covering Tate broke off coverage to stop him. Tate was wide open in the corner for Tjax to toss the ball to him.
Correction
In 2009, the Vikings brought in long-coveted-by-Childress future HOFer Favre to start over Jackson, and subsequently had a Superbowl losing season, which is to say a resounding success.
I think you mean conference title game-losing season.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
doh! my bad.
but, uhhh… they lost to the Super Bowl winners?That’s what I meant. Yep. Then again, I did finish writing this at 5 am so…
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
We are starting to talk ourselves in circles on Jackson
And to be perfectly frank, my mounting frustration is with the “we need a new QB” crowd. It’s clear that Jackson isn’t the best looking date at the prom, but if this discussion is to move forward at all you have to do more than just call him ugly. It seems to me you need to specify who the new date should be and how the Seahawks get that person interested. (See what I did there, keeping that gender neutral?)
Tarvaris Jackson is a fairly durable (13+ game) starter who will give you between 6.5-7.5 ANY/A with below average turnovers. He is above replacement level (think Whitehurst, JP Losman), with a probable upside of league average QB. He’s not the worst QB in the league, which is about the apotheosis of damning with faint praise. No one on Field Gulls to my knowledge, in posts or comments, has really tried to claim more than this. I doubt anyone on this forum would oppose a legitimate upgrade (depending on cost).
So, can we declare that part of the conversation resolved? At this point, the hair we are trying to split here is pretty darn thin.
The only discussion worth continuing is, who is the upgrade and what’s the cost?
At this point we have a reasonable (if early) idea of the market for NFL QBs. We also, save any surprise early draft entries, have an idea of the available QBs in the upcoming draft.
If you believe that we simply cannot enter 2012 training camp with Jackson as the entrenched starter, no problem. I respect that. Hell, I agree with you in the abstract. But you cannot continue to compare Tarvaris Jackson to the entire field of NFL QBs. That is unfair. I’m calling balderdash on that.
It seems to me that you need to specify your guy and make a case for how we get him that’s stronger than “draft somebody in April” or “trade up and get one of the top guys.”
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Dec 27, 2011 12:17 PM PST reply actions 12 recs
Well said. I'm pretty sure most of us believe there are bettter
QB’s for us IN THEORY, but the reality is, the free agent pool looks weak, with no one there likely to be available that is a sure fire upgrade to TJ, and the draft may be to costly to move up enough to get one of the top 2 QB’s. What are folks willing to give up to get one of those 2 top QB’s, or which free agent would you prefer start ahead of TJ?
by BlueThruAndThru on Dec 27, 2011 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think people care who the competition is as long as the price is reasonable and he provides legitimate competition for Jackson.
There’s going to be a lot of different opinions on who that is exactly. Some people will trade three firsts for Luck, some people will back a truck full of money up to the Flynn house, and most people will fall somewhere in between. For me, the only option that’s completely unacceptable is being content with Jackson as the starter next season. In my opinion, if he has the same role next year as he did this year something went wrong.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 27, 2011 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Much respect Nate Dogg
but how do we have a discussion around “I don’t think people care who the competition is…”? To me that sounds like you’re just saying, “I want a better QB!” and then folding your arms.
Well who doesn’t want a better QB, man? The FO can’t just wish one up. How would you propose we get one precisely?
We have access to the same basic set of information the front office has about who is available, obviously not the same level of insider detail. But we all know that the pro-player market and the draft are extremely thin.
The “lots of different opinions on who [the next QB] is exactly” seem to me the only things worth discussing in this forum.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Dec 27, 2011 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
...because we're all pretty much in agreement that we need a QB upgrade
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I was vague because I think different people have different favorites, and that's maybe a conversation for a different post.
The reasonable ideas I like are Orton, Flynn or Weeden. I think between those three the FO can find a reasonably priced alternative to Jackson that at the very least should compete with him, if not replace him outright. Mix in Manning, the potential to trade up for Griffin or even maybe Luck, and some of the midrange guys that you listed (Campbell, Hoyer) and Seattle will have a lot of opportunities to look for an upgrade, even if they aren’t all QBoTF upgrades.
I definitely agree that it’s something that should be discussed instead of going around and around about whether Jackson is average, or below average, or decent, or whatever. I thought your post was great at getting that started.
Although in all honesty ...
if the FO had any interest in Orton, they certainly didn’t indicate it at all when he was available on the waiver wire.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Based on the timing and his future FA status
The waiver wire interest doesn’t really indicate what their off-season interest will be. PC sticks with his QB through the season, that much he has shown already.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
This is exactly how I feel....
well said sir!
by richDad on Dec 27, 2011 1:21 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Also very well said...
Tarvaris Jackson is not currently a top 10 QB, but it is not a fact that he can’t get better. Yes the FO should try to improve the position, and that should include due diligence with all the top FAs, trade possibilities, and the draft. But improving the position also means continuing to teach and develop the players that you already have, especially ones with the physical talent that TJax has.
On that note, everyone thought Michael Vick was a total wash and would never be able to start due to his lack of character, intelligence, random fleeing from the pocket, and inability to go through progressions or understand a pro style offense. In his first 6 seasons in ATL, Vick had 67 starts, over 1600 pass attempts, 54% completion rate, and a passer rating of 75.7. Michael Vick reportedly scored a 20 on the Wonderlic, and Tarvaris reportedly scored a 19. Now, Vick has some level of character and wisdom (learned), on field intelligence (learned), pocket presence (learned), and runs a standard WCO with all the needs for footwork and pass progressions that go along with it (all learned). In his 3 years with PHI, Vick has improved to a 60.9% completion rate and a 91.4 passer rating, improved his ANY/A by 1.9 yards, and decreased his sack rate by 3%. SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY TARVARIS CAN’T DO THE SAME?
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
by pqlqi on Dec 27, 2011 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Oh?
it is not a fact that he can’t get better.
PS, Vick sucks.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
It may be bias, but I tend to favor quarterbacks who can pass for over 60% or have more than a 1.1:1 TD:Int ratio.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Vick passes for over 60% and has a 2:1 TD:Int ratio for the last 2 years
so yeah, it is bias.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Vick had one flash-in-the-pan year in 2010, and in 2011 is at 59%, 15TD, 13Int
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
He also has 75 rushes for almost 600 yards.
Vick is his own checkdown and that hurts his completion%. This is definitely a down year for him, no doubt, but it’s a huge stretch to say he sucks.
It's not a down year. It's the second-best year of his career. And it's still an awful year.
Two years of good play would qualify as a trend. He hasn’t had that yet.
I reiterate, Vick Sucks.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
Not by passer rating, or yards.
Which, while limited (passer rating), is still a fairly accurate measure of how well a quarterback passed the ball in a given year.
People give a lot of credence to one eleven-game stretch of a guy’s career. Over 91 games, he’s been an awful passer for 80 of them. That’s kind of a bigger sample size than Tarvaris, and we’re ready to write him off.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
That's a mighty big statement. I'd be enamored by your assertion if you could actually back up that he's been bad for 80 out of 91 games.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
Well, just for posterity's sake:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VickMi00.htm
2001-2009: 68 games started, 53.7%, 72TD 52INT, 6.7 YPA, 75.9 Rate
2011: 12 games started, 59.6%, 15TD 13INT, 7.7 YPA, 82.9 Rate
In total, 80 games excluding only 2011: 54.7%, 87TD, 65INT, 79.5 Approx. Rate
In other words, just about exactly the same rating ballpark as Tarvaris.
In still other words, Vick Sucks.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
Well that's one way to look at it!
Another way would be to say that the average of 80 games does not compute that all 80 of those games sucked. Check game logs and show me where he has been bad for 80 out of 91 games. Nobody is denying that Vick has had his share of bad games, but to say “He’s been bad in 80 of 91 games” is just not factual. Some would say it’s fictional and a fun way to fudge the numbers.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
Some would also say that ignoring what Vick can do rushing the ball is painting half a picture.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 27, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Vick rushes?!? When did this happen?
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
He would rush more if his O-line could keep his body intact.
Yes I’m blaming his O-line for ruining one of our generation’s most gifted athletes.
Many of Vick's injuries have occured
well past the LOS when he’s diving/fighting for extra yards.
Like his ribs last year. He doesn’t slide when he should, he tries to finish the run like a running back.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Fair enough,
He’s been bad on average over a sample size of 80 games. This is a longer way of saying “Vick Sucks.”
To Nate Dogg below, I would say that it generally makes sense for quarterbacks to throw and running backs to pass, but if anyone has any better ideas than that, they should either become a head coach somewhere. Or get a Tebow jersey.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 3:03 PM PST up reply actions
aaaand
and running backs topass
run
Serves me right.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
It's a shame you blew it, it was a good line. :)
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Vick wasn't drafted to be a pure pocket passer, he was drafted because of his ability to both run and throw which helped the Falcons score points and win games.
You can’t just look at his passing numbers and say “Failure” because you’d be ignoring half of his game, like Nate Dogg says. If you judge Mark Sanchez on his passing numbers, fine, that’s fair, but Vick is a special case.
The Falcons went from 23rd in scoring in 2001 to 5th in 2002 when he became the full time starter and made the playoffs. (And won at Lambeau in the playoffs.)
In 2003, Atlanta went 3-1 under Vick and 2-10 under everyone else. In 2004, Atlanta went 11-5 when he returned and won another playoff game.
His ability to move the chains is what kept the Atlanta offense on the field and helped the team as a whole, even if he was not and is not a great passer. When everything clicked perfectly last year in Philadelphia, we saw how good it can get.
People can dislike Vick as a passer, but “Vick sucks” is crazy talk, in my opinion.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Tell that to Cam Newton, who just set the rookie
record for passing yards, and is second in the NFL in rushing touchdowns. In fact, tell that to Aaron Rodgers, who is consistently 2nd or 3rd among QBs in rushing yards, averaging around 280+ yards per year with 4 TDs.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Marshawn Lynch sucks too.
he averages 4.0 ypc over his career, and only ranked 30th (2011), 41st, 40th, 26th, and 29th (2007) in YPC for each of the last 5 seasons. Given that average, he shouldn’t even be a starting RB.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Also, you completely miss the point of the Vick comparison
you can’t take a career average and use that to prove that the player sucks, and still use that same career average to argue that he didn’t get better over time. The argument for improvement over time requires looking at trends in statistics and looking at tape of player performance. Yes, he was a bad pocket passer for 6 years, but in 2010 he had an excellent season as a pocket passer. This season may be hard to interpret because of everything else going on in PHI and his rib injury. His style of play of course is prone to injury.
But the man improved his ability to play in the pocket and learned how to run a WCO. No career average stat that doesn’t take into account change over time will erase that fact.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Vick also has talent that no quarterback other than maybe Cam has.
And he was on a stacked offense. Vick was capitalizing on the talent everyone knew he had, Jackson would be shocking even his most hopeful supporters.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 27, 2011 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
He could, but so could Charlie.
So could any quarterback.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 27, 2011 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Seriously. No QB under 30 should ever be cut if we go on "he could improve"
And he isn’t comically terrible.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
Thank you.
Saying “player A did it” is not a valid reason. Vick was a highly sought-after pick when he was drafted. Jackson was, by my memory, a reach in the second round.
To answer my own post
I’d do two things (3 really) that are not mutually exclusive:
1. I’d target RG3 in the draft and look to package picks and trade with CLE or JAX. I think Seattle is in a very good place to consider making a big move up. We still need quality depth, but really other than QB we’re not looking for a long-term answer or even an immediate starter early in this draft.
Obviously, CLE or JAX might not be amenable to a deal (though I think both would talk to us). So an alternative, or even complementary strategy is…
2. Target Jason Campbell in free agency to compete with Jackson. I wouldn’t necessarily guarantee him a starting job. (I don’t know that he will generate many starting offers in free agency.)
3. I’d bring Jackson back, regardless. The front office has never promised him anything long-term. I do, however, think he deserves a shot to compete for the starting job.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Dec 27, 2011 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If they end up at 10th in the draft I'll be big on making a move for Griffin.
If they end up towards 17th or 18th I don’t know that it’s realistic.
It depends on how Griffin plays in the bowl game and performs in the combine
So since he’s playing Washington I assume his stock will vault.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
Eh, I don't think his stock is that variable at this point.
A lot of the the talk that he’ll go top ten in the draft are based off what people expect him to do in the combine. I think he’s at the point where he can only hurt his stock there.
Yeah, the questions about Griffin are his suitability for a pro offense
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Perhaps...
but I’m keeping my eye on JAX. They really need a WR in the worst way. They may be looking QB, but I doubt it. There are probably three first round WRs (Justin Blackmon, Malcolm Floyd, and Kendall Wright).
I know I might be grasping at straws here, but JAX could legitimately trade down to the 16-18 range get their starter at WR and get a bounty of picks.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
There's also Dwight Jones, who could be a top five pick the first WR taken.
It’s possible that the Rams or Vikings take him though.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 27, 2011 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Since we're talking solutions,
in 1981, Bill Walsh was beginning the third year of his rebuild with the San Francisco 49ers, and saw one major hole remaining: DB. With his 1st, 3rd, and 4th round picks that year, he took three DB’s, hoping one of them would work out. 1981 is the year they won their first super bowl.
I know it’s unconventional thinking to say the least, but if Schneider took the quarterback he liked best with, say, three of their first five picks, I would feel very comfortable (based on Schneider’s demonstrated scouting chops) that one of them would develop into a legitimate starter.
by pacificsands on Dec 27, 2011 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Jacksonville's Gene Smith has been trying to repeat on this tactic
With very little success.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
It seems like a good idea but it's too hard to pull off with quarterbacks.
There are too few reps to go around and they don’t fill other roles such as special teams.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Seattle ends up taking two quarterbacks in this draft.
This.
The above-mentioned scheme simply doesn’t work with quarterbacks. It’s like having three girlfriends for six months and seeing who “emerges”, there just aren’t enough reps.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
But it sure would make for some interesting blogging
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Maybe not enough reps for you.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Dec 27, 2011 6:09 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
They can, they almost never do.
Cody Pickett played ST for the Niners to save his roster spot. That’s super rare though and I don’t know of any other examples.
Kickers and punters make tackles all the time.
And there aren’t any backup kickers and punters.
Kickers and punters make tackles when everyone else misses.
If your kicker and punter are making too many tackles, it’s probably because you have too many quarterbacks on special teams not making tackles earlier…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And the Patriots killed it with this tactic for tight ends.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
There are 4 ways to get a franchise QB
1. The team sucks and drafts first after a 2-14 year(Peyton Manning).
2. The team gets lucky and drafts a guy later that turns out to be great (Tom Brady/Joe Montana/Dan Marino).
3. The team trades for a QB someone else has given up on (Drew Brees).
4. The team gives up a boatload of picks for the No 1 pick( John Elway) probably because the player forces a trade as the team with the first pick rarely trades out of the pick if a franchise QB is there.
Our FO is focused on acquiring a QB using method 2 or 3 while the posters on this board and throughout Seahawk land believe the only option is No. 4. Option 1 hasn’tworked recently as half of the top QB’s in the last 10 years have disappoinnted.
.
True
They signed him as a free agent for $10M per year. The concept is the same with FA, the former team had given up on him.
"Option 1 hasn’tworked recently as half of the top QB’s in the last 10 years have disappoinnted."
Que? Half of the top QB’s have disappointed AND it hasn’t worked recently?
How recent do you consider “recent”? Do you mean the #1 draft pick after Cam Newton was drafted? Because I was unaware of any QBs drafted first overall since Cam Newton. Or that Sam Bradford was done as a QB. Or that Matthew Stafford really sucks. Or that Matt Ryan is TERRIBLE. Or that Eli Manning has never done anything.
Be careful not to cherry pick JaMarcus Russell and then assert that “half of the top QBs in the last 10 years have disappointed”
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I assume last 10 years and recent are the same thing
First QB picks since 2001: Michael Vick, David Carr, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Alex Smith, Vince Young (3), JaMarcus Russell, Matt Ryan (3), Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton.
I don’t like judging within 3 years and Stafford’s career is hard to judge due to injuries. From the remaining 7, I’d say four are either busts or disappointments, due to various reasons (Carr, Smith, Young and Russell).
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
It would not be egregious to say that the four you do not count are all on their way to being stars.
Cam Newton and Matthew Stafford especially. It also doesn’t back up the OP’s supposed assertion that drafting a QB after you go 2-14 (or any record that lands you a top pick) is a bad solution to the QB problem.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 3:03 PM PST up reply actions
Three I don't count
And it would not, but Newton is a big unknown (he wouldn’t be the first to shock the world and then taper off), and with Stafford it’s a very open question whether or not he can have a successful NFL career at all. Injury busts are still busts.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
I see, you didn't count Stafford, so I counted from 7 and thought you were including Ryan in the "can't be judged yet" category.
I wouldn’t put Stafford in the “injury” category either. Missing the majority of one season out of three. We’ll see what happens with the latter few of those guys. Starting all 15 games this year and playing through injury is a good sign to me.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 4:12 PM PST up reply actions
JaCarcass is a statistical outlier like Brady.
He should be tossed from any analysis. And since Al Davis is dead, it won’t be repeated.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
JaMarcus was a legit top-5 pick
Trying to rewrite history to dismiss him as a typical Raiders pick is a stretch. He had red flags, but he had all the tools of a top QB prospect.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 6:22 PM PST up reply actions
He was drafted based on one bowl game,
and physical tools.
It was a typical Davis snake eyes gamble, and was spoke of as such at the time.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
And Newton was drafted based on one season, and physical tools
I’m not saying I agreed with him being the 1st overall pick, and in fact there was a lot to argue for Quinn being picked over him JaMarcus, but we’re not being honest if we pretend he was an obvious bust at the time, and not worth top-of-1st-round consideration.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 7:01 PM PST up reply actions
Newton's one season is still a lot more solid than 1 bowl ...
it’s just not honest to try to compare Newton and Russell’s alleged lack of solid qualifiers.
The only person that would have made Russell a top of the first round pick based on ONE bowl game is Davis. Just like his decision to pick Darrius Heyward-Bey or Sebastian Janikowski in the first round despite no one else valuing them that high. It’s just not honest to think that JMR would have been a top pick if not for Davis.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Really? You think he would've fallen out of the 1st?
This is like pretending Darriys Heyward-Bey wasn’t a 1st round pick just because the Raiders picked him higher than expected.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 4:42 AM PST up reply actions
not a "top of the 1st round" pick ...
not sure if he would have fallen out of the 1st altogether but there’s no question he didn’t warrant a top 10 pick based on his meager pedigree.
I would have been surprised to see DHB picked in the first round that year if Davis hadn’t swooped him where he did. He just wasn’t polished enough to warrant a first round pick.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Pick your own timeframe
Ken. I think it is fair to say that about half of the QB’s taken with the top pick in the draft have historically been disappointments. The expectaion is they will become the next John Elway or Marino. The reality is most are just average like Alex Smith or JaMarcus Russell. In 20 years no one will remember their name. The odds of getting a ‘franchise QB’ with a top 5 pick are about 50%.
Fair enough, but are you asserting that a team should not draft a QB in the top 5?
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
No
What I am saying is that if a team invests multiple picks and players to move up the risks are huge. The GM and coach are betting their jobs on the move. If the kid fails the team will be set back for years. It will take 3 or more first round picks or starters. For the Seahawks to move from #15 to #5 for RG3 may require they trade Okung, Earl Thomas, and #15. To move to #1 for Luck, I would assume you add a second #1 pick.this is too much risk when the coach has only a 5 year contract. The team will suck for a couple years after the trade and the coach will be gone before the franchise QB matures. This is why it never happens.
On the seller side, do you want to be the guy that traded away the next Elway? Your fans will never let you forget it if Luck becomes Elway 2.0.
I'm not going to argue what it's going to require to move up as of today.
It’s pointless to do before the season is over and all the chips are counted.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 27, 2011 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
If the team stands pat and doesn't find a decent QB
the risks are also HUGE. You just can’t make that kind of proclamation when it all comes down to whether the pick pans out or not. I don’t believe for one minute the FO would consider trading the centerpiece of their offense away in Thomas. Trades like this where teams move up in the draft involve trading current and future draft picks, not established stars on ones team for a higher draft choice. And if the pick turns out to be a perennial pro bowler, than a trade up would be totally worth it.
If your scouting projects RG3 to be a QB with a quick learning curve that will make an immediate impact, and that he will be a far superior player than anyone else attainable via draft and free agency, you have to make that move in order to best improve the team. Not being able to look into the future you need to make the decision that puts the team in the best position to win.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
If you settle on a 50/50 shot of being right
then you just have to weigh that risk with the cost of using 3 or 4 high round picks that it would require for us to trade up to get one of the top two picks. It’s one thing to blow a 1st round pick on Jamarcus Russel, but I think the Carson Palmer trade of 2 first round picks will be far more harmful, and if people are arguing to give up 3 or 4 first and second round picks, well, you are risking failing at 4 picks, not just one. And if your modus operandi is to trade down, then you are risking failing at 6 or 8 or 10 potential picks with just one bust. You just don’t keep all your eggs in one basket.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
50/50 of being right in the first on a guy,
and 5/95 of being right thereafter.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Dec 27, 2011 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yup, you're doing a really poor job of taking into account
the far lower probabilities if trying to find a QB that’s not a top tier draft pick. The chances become far more of a longshot. 5/95 sounds about right. You’re just not providing the entire picture since it would destroy your argument.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Great Post... though I see some questions out there
I still there is a question of whether we do need a better QB. There may be something to be said for investing in the running game and defense over the QB position. The main advantage is that when you do something different from other teams then you can get better value because there is less competition for the talent. To me the most interesting question is: Are PC/JS doing the best the can while waiting to get a good value on a great QB or is their philosophy to try to win without an elite QB?
The best evidence that I have is their trade for Whitehurst that seemed to indicate that they value the QB position highly and are just waiting for the right QB.
Anyway, the thing that will be interesting to me is to see how far the 49ers can go with strong defense and run game. Will it prove to be a winning formula or will Rodgers/Brees just dominate them?
by bhamballer on Dec 28, 2011 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
With the strike and O-line issues TJ was the prudent move. Now it's tie to move on.
Carroll always talks good about his guys. Including, um, TJ. By doing this I catch myself thinking, “Oh God No! Carroll thinks he’s good and he’ll be here forever .” No way. And if you catch the last post game press conf. Carroll made comments about not making passes when needed. Tells me he’s about tired of it. I don’t know who, but I bet there’s going to be plenty of competition at QB next year.
I think the issue is lowered expectations
This is really no different than the Hasselbeck situation.
In 2010 he was so hopelessly shit that Carroll actually had the balls to do what Mora wouldn’t do and bench Hasselbeck. “CHARLIE! CHARLIE! CHARLIE!” all game long. Then Hasselbeck had two good playoff games and because he had a few good games and didn’t play like the worst QB in football, the idea was to basically “bring him back next year and let a rookie sit, we’re not in position to draft a QB”. Then Hasselbeck decided he wants a long-term deal and out he went. I have no doubt that if Hasselbeck asked for one more season the Seahawks would’ve re-signed him.
Tarvaris Jackson brought us low expectations and now that we know he’s about a backup-level QB masquerading as a below-average starter there is still the idea that we need to give Jackson another year and then draft a project QB and have him sit for a season because we aren’t in position to draft 1st round talent.
I don’t know how many years it will take for this whole charade to end, but Seattle needs to take a risk.
The difference between Seattle being in a “win and in” playoff game and mathematically out came down to a 61 yard field goal. If Seattle thinks that they can be a playoff team next year, they need a better QB. There was no guarantee that Andy Dalton would be better than Carson Palmer, and there’s no guarantee that Cam Newton wouldn’t lose out to Jimmy Clausen. If Seattle is in a position to draft a QB, then they need to do it. This more than anything has held back the offense for about 4 years and it seems that as much as we talk about needing a QB we go out of our way to say “Oh the DEs need to be fixed first” or “This QB class isn’t good” or “There is no better option”.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2011 2:00 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Which field goal?
The Raiders missed 65 yarder was another FG we could have used that in some ways mathematically eliminated us…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
It would be nice to see an overall article on the failure of those "game-winning drives".
What are the D-schemes he’s facing (Is TJack the only QB in the NFL who has trouble passing against Prevent Defenses)? Is it the Scheme, O-line breakdown, WR’s who can’t improvise?
I'll try to do this when I make my gifs post.
But it’s hard to see what’s going on down field on TV.
Well too bad, because we don't have the time to do the research
But I might take a look. I wanted to do the opening drive but Danny beat me to it, so I might as well do the negative side of the story again.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
The negative side of the story by Mr. Beekers.
Can’t wait.
And I think Thomas has his title
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
"And now you know...
the negative side of the story."
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
by shams on Dec 27, 2011 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No, I meant a season overview of TJack's game-ending drives.
Sometime during the offseason when things are slow, maybe.
We'll do a lot of that stuff in the off-season, hopefully
But I don’t have any immediate sense that an obvious trend has been shown. We’ve seen him put in valuable long clock-eating drives lately, and completely fail as well. We’ll see.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry, "game-ending" referring to those drives he failed (that sunk the game).
An analysis of trends that may show up within that sample.
There are no game winning drives to counter with,
so game ending was appropriate.
Lynch beast moding on the niners was the closest thing to a game winning drive we’ve had. IIRC. But, I’m a few beers deep, so don’t quote me.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Let me get a couple more beers.
I might remember.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Tim Tebow shreds the prevent D.
But opposing D coordinators know TJ shits bricks with pressure so they brings it when they know he has to pass.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
New poster alert
Love all the discussion! Not that anyone cares, but here’s my two cents: I agree that we need an upgrade at the QB position, and we won’t be the team that we want to be without him there. I am not convinced that TJ can’t improve, but I’m not convinced that he is “the guy”.
SSreporters identified the biggest problem, IMO. When Hasselbeck suffered his serious decline, the front office was reluctant to make the risky move to improve the position then. Unfortunately we’re feeling the affects of that now. The catch-22 is that there will always be high risk in finding “the guy”, but there will never be the perfect time to make the big move to do it. So to avoid it, we upgrade other known positions of need and settle with raw QB talents and hope they pan out. Unfortunately, we’ve either finished too well to draft a true QB prospect or afraid to pull the trigger in free agency otherwise. I really don’t know the reason, but we regardless we haven’t brought in a guy with huge QB potential since Hass. TJ, CW, Losman, Frye, Teel, Seneca Wallace, and whoever else I am missing are the names of either drafted or traded for QBs that we have had on the roster while trying to improve other positions. At some point there needs to be a polished, higher pedigree guy brought in to be “the guy”. My point is that I agree with the philosophy of building the depth of other positions to minimize the risks, but at some point (like I think we are at now where he have built some decent depth) we need to follow through with it and bring in a QB who has the pedigree to seriously compete at least.
As for specifics moves this offseason, I personally think that if we are too far away to seriously deal for RGIII, then there is a young, high-pedigree prospect who sits at the bottom of New England’s depth chart….however I know that this move is unlikely.
Schneider chose to take a pass on Palmer and Kolb
Hindsight seems to be pretty good right now. I am sure Arizona would love to have their All Pro CB and draft picks back for Kolb. Palmer hasn’t been as effective as TJax in Oakland. Sometimes it is the trade you don’t make that creates all the difference. I am sure Schneider and Carroll are evaluating every possibility in the draft, free agency or thru trade. When they make ‘the big move’, I feel confident it will be a guy that will improve the position.
Agreed
I believe that our FO has a better eye for pedigree and talent then a guy who had only proved to be a nice backup and a vastly overpriced and aging QB.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
The Charlie Whitehurst deal doesn't quite agree about the eye for pedigree and talent.
Although I could be fair and say that story is not yet complete.
I failed to define what I mean by "pedigree and talent"
Sorry about that. Charlie Whitehurst was projected to be a 4th or 5th round talent before being drafted in the 3rd by San Diego. He could have turned out to be Brady, but the odds of that were stacked against him. Conversely, a guy like Ryan Mallet was a 1st round talent that would have likely been drafted as such if not for an epic failure in addressing his off-field issues. Scouts are often wrong and we never quite know how guys will turn out, however in terms of competing for a starting QB job, I would expect that the differences between two QBs will be greater if the two are a potential 1st round talent who was drafted in the 3rd (Mallet) and a 6-7th round talent drafted in the 2nd (Tarvaris) versus that same 6-7th round talent and a 4-5th round talent drafted in the 3rd (Whitehurst). And the two guys were drafted in the same year. Mallet’s got 5 years less mileage.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 5:20 PM PST up reply actions
Ugh, can we stop talking about Mallet's "off the field issues"?
Because as far as I could tell, they pretty much amounted to “this guy likes to drink, and we don’t like his accent”.
by djafrot on Dec 28, 2011 2:01 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Can we stop pretending we know what anyone thought or knew about Mallett?
The rumors didn’t begin and end with “likes to drink” (that was the talk about Stafford before he went 1st overall). In addition to his problematic footwork and mobility, there were rumors of drug addiction and he admitted to at least recreational drug use:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Drug-rumors-surrounding-Ryan-Mallett.html
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 28, 2011 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
Credence to what the league felt about it.
Which, I wonder if Clausen’s fall affected their view. That might sound a bit silly, but I’ve become convinced Clausen’s failure almost purely stems from an attitude problem. Impeded coachability, alienated teammates, while not being secure enough to let that quickly erode confidence.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 29, 2011 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
Or he just wasn't a very good QB to start with
Rob Staton was talking about how poor of a prospect the guy was when he was still in contention for the #2 overall pick.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 30, 2011 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, he may have simply been a bad QB.
Having studied doubters and failing isn’t corroboration, of course, but definitely he may simply have been bad.
Head of catering.
Interesting stuff in there.
a) there’s proof of very little there, other than Mallett admitting to drug use to various teams before the draft.
b) yeah, he’s admitting to drug use, and the second article acknowledges that this is actually rare for a potential draft pick to do… which completely contradicts darkknight’s allegations of Mallett’s “epic failure in addressing his off-field issues”.
I followed the Mallett scenario pretty closely around draft time, and I don’t remember anyone showing me anything that struck me as particularly damning. I did, however, see a lot of commentators popping up with “he looks like a douche” or some other crap.
That he fell to the third certainly (as Nate notes below) that teams were wary enough to stay away. Why, we don’t know. But the fact that the Pats, a very smart organization in my mind, were willing to take a grab at him tells me he might have been worth the risk.
Carson Palmer gets a bit of a mulligan
He’s been pretty up and down, not surprisingly. That’s the non-move I regret to some degree, but that cost was pretty steep.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Yeah...
As a preseason move I would have liked Carson too, but that price just obliterated my interest in him. For the record, I think that we can win games with Tarvaris, but my personal feelings are that we’ll continue to come up short if he’s the aspect of our team that has to be counted on to win against good teams.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 5:27 PM PST up reply actions
Can we get year-end stats
on how many times the words Tarvaris Jackson, TJack, “Tavaris”, and etc. appeared on this site this year?
I might be interested in starting a competing blog/forum where we solely discuss “SeaJack”. Data suggests that it may be quite a bit more popular than actually discussing the team as a whole.
He's a hot topic now, but I think you're being unfair to this site/community
Quarterbacks are always the most-discussed topic, but the stories in general have been far more evenly spread, fanposts have rarely been focused on T-Jax. It helps that during the second half of our season Marshawn Lynch has been much more important to the offense than Tarvaris.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 27, 2011 4:11 PM PST up reply actions
It was not my intent to sound overly critical to anyone in particular or be unfair.
But IMO there really is no denying that Tarvaris has been the preeminent topic of conversation since the day he signed, and will likely be so until he leaves. If there was (as I jokingly referenced above) a stat sheet for the number one topic of the year based on keywords, he’d be it. By what I feel is a landslide. I don’t feel that is unfair at all.
However, one could point out that you have an inherent bias to try and promote this site as being as diverse as you can make it – to appeal to the most people and increase traffic, and etc. and maybe it’s as diverse as you can make it. I’m not JUDGING you, the site, or any hard work you have done in writing for it.
I’m just saying that as a relatively impartial observer – and someone who is not actively “anti-Tarvaris” considering the options – I’ll be glad when there’s something other to talk about.
The quarterback is the #1 topic for pretty much every team in the NFL
Even the Broncos, with one of the best defensive players in Dumervil and an absolute beast of a top pick in Von Miller, their barely-competent quarterback is still by far the most discussed topic. Nature of NFL discourse.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 4:44 AM PST up reply actions
I get it.
It’s just that we have the same discussions over and over again. And I’m not speaking metaphorically. I was just pointing that out.
Fair 'nough and a correct observation. Apologies for turning it into a meaningless subthread.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 8:27 AM PST up reply actions
Hey, no apology necessary.
We need to break up the monotony of solely talking about T-Jack by meta referencing the fact that we are aware that we are talking about T-Jack a lot.
It’s my little bit of subversion for the day.
by Tokyo Slim on Dec 28, 2011 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
He'll get some serious competition from "Luck" and "FUCK"
by Benne on Dec 27, 2011 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Both of which are
either inherently lead to a conversation about Tarvaris, or is because of Tarvaris.
I'd also like to see the anti-Tarvaris crowd consider opportunity cost
Everything the team does has a cost attached. Right now, there’s room for some debate about how good Tarvaris is and how good he could be next year, but unequivocal statements like “the team can’t win with him” are basically worthless.
Quarterback is the most expensive position in the league. Investing in a quarterback who is demonstrably better than Jackson (via draft, trade, or free agency) is likely to require a significant outlay of money, draft picks, players on the roster, or some combination thereof. Even if all the team does is spend their first-round pick (without trading up) on Rookie QB X, that’s both a pick and a contract that could go to someone else. Couple that with the fact that it’s rare that a first-year quarterback puts up numbers comparable to what Jackson has produced this year (as in, the Ponders and Gabberts are a lot more common than the Newtons and Daltons), and you’re looking at a likely downgrade at QB in 2012 if you draft a QB.
If you discuss trading up, or trading for Peyton Manning (or some other vet), or signing a free agent, then you’re talking about some combination of players/draft picks/money. Thus, the proper way to frame this debate isn’t “will the Seahawks be better with Quarterback X (who cost Y money/picks/players)than they are with Jackson” but “are they better with Quarterback X than they are with Jackson and whatever player(s) they may get with those same resources.” Especially in a market where any number of teams will be looking for help at QB (as is the case every year), winning a bidding war is rarely a good thing.
All that being said, it’s not as if those of us who are willing to go forward with Jackson as the starter in 2012 believe that the team shouldn’t look for an upgrade down the road. It’s merely that the team should (and most likely will) be prudent: drafting a quarterback (or signing one, or trading for one) shouldn’t be done just because a segment of the fan base doesn’t like Tarvaris. It should be done because it’s the best way to improve the team. As much as I like the look of the roster in 2012, there are certainly any number of other holes (pass rush, for one) that may offer more improvement in 2012 than bringing in a new quarterback.
I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little
by Sportszilla on Dec 27, 2011 4:58 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Of course, but the costs at QB are higher than anywhere else
One of the things I’ve liked about the Schneider-Carroll FO is that they seem interested in testing some of the current truisms in the NFL. For the last few years we’ve heard that a team can’t win without an Elite QB, even though some teams have done an awful lot of winning without one.
Think again
In fact, it's looking more and more like the 2011 49ers could serve
As a model for the 2012 Seahawks, with the big difference being that Alex Smith had been legitimately terrible over a much larger number of games, and thus expecting the team to succeed with him seemed crazy. Yet, here they are at 12-3. Some of that may be luck, but they’re clearly a good team, just not a team with a great quarterback. That could quite easily be the 2012 Seahawks.
Think again
Sure. but the 2012 Seahawks could also be the 2011 Niners plus a good quarterback.
Just because other teams have succeeded despite their quarterbacks doesn’t mean the Seahawks should try to do the same thing.
I completely agree on this
Baseball does a much better job of having this conversation. Good starting pitching is hard as hell to get. So, most people recognize the value of an above replacement level starter but you are always on the hunt for upgrades. No matter how good your offense, you’re not going going to compete long-term without at least average starting pitching.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
The St. Louis Cardinals were 6th in the NL (14 overall) in Starting Pitcher WAR this year
Somehow, they won the WS, despite being basically average at the position. The Mariners, btw, were 6th in the AL (but 8th overall, because the AL is better), and won 67 games. Similarly, Tony Romo is 4th in DYAR in the NFL, and Eli Manning is 8th, but one of those teams is missing the playoffs.
The cost of improving from “average” to “above average (or better)” at QB is likely to be extremely high. If the Seahawks can move from “terrible” to “above average” at, say, rushing the passer, it might well cost less and have more of an impact on the win total.
Think again
Correction, Manning is 7th in DYAR
Think again
Don't use playoff baseball as an example.
SSS skews the outcomes. The better team doesn’t win nearly enough for my liking.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
Granted, that was an extremely simple example
But the point remains that you can make the playoffs without great (or even good) starting pitching. You probably can’t make them with terrible starting pitching, but even below-average can be overcome with a great offense. Similarly, you might not be able to win a Super Bowl with terrible quarterbacking, but I bet you can with average.
Think again
by Sportszilla on Dec 27, 2011 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
Sure. As I said, no one thinks they shouldn't upgrade if they can (at a reasonable cost).
I just think there are too many people who would consider any first round pick, or any veteran QB, an upgrade. Some may well be, but I think they numbers provide a better assessment of Jackson. Right now, he’s 18th in the league in DYAR (and 17th in DVOA). Those numbers might improve with a full off-season, a healthier o-line, etc. However, it also has to be noted that he’s statistically comparable to (if not better than) far more expensive QBs like Flacco, Sanchez, Cutler, and Palmer.
Generally, I’d rather the team allocate resources to the pass rush, which has (outside of Clemens) been awful this year, and try to win with Jackson, instead of spending those resources on what may turn out to be a marginal upgrade, or even a downgrade, over Jackson.
Think again
Or Jackson might regress, we don't know.
They shouldn’t lock into any position, whether it’s quarterback or pass rush or anything else. They should prioritize their needs though, and right now I think quarterback should easily be the highest priority.
You say that generally you’d prefer pass rush, but assuming Seattle could draft him would you really take the top rated defensive end (Coples?) over Luck or the second best defensive end over Griffin? Would you take the top rated FA defensive end over Manning? I would hope not. And don’t assume that investing in pass rush is a guarantee, there’s the potential that whoever they bring in on the defensive line provides only a marginal upgrade or a downgrade.
Sure, obviously there are no guarantees at any position
Aaron Curry should stand as a stark testament to that.
However, you’re basically creating an extremely unlikely scenario. If the Seahawks invest the resources to get the #1 overall pick, it would be to take Luck, and no other player would offer a big enough potential return to make that worthwhile.
If Griffin is available where they draft, that might be a different story. Of course I’m not against adding a QB in any way shape or form. I just think it’s likely to be an inefficient use of resources.
Think again
I couldn't disagree more ...
If there were major holes at any other position I might agree. But as it stands, the defense does a decent enough job most of the time that the picks given up in trading up for a Luck or Griffin won’t have as big of an opportunity cost for the type of player they could have drafted instead who would improve the team’s win/loss total. It’s not like they are devoid of a pass rush. Clemons and Bryant do a decent enough job and JS has demonstrated the ability to discover gems like Clemons and Red Bryant without having to expend a top first round draft pick to think he might be able to do so again. Plus, Clemons and Bryant are already decent enough at their position that adding another top flight DE would not (in econ terms) maximize marginal utility as much as adding a top flight QB.
Adding a top flight QB would go the longest way in improving this team the most and it’s not even close enough to have the discussion of whether an additional top flight DE would improve the win/loss total more. It’s so not even remotely close that it’s just disingenuous for you to even bring it up and imply that it would be.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
The opportunity cost is huge, because too much of our defense are still stopgaps
This defensive line is not a longterm answer, nor are Hawthorne and (probably) Hill.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 4:45 AM PST up reply actions
You think that's huge? Opportunity cost of neglecting QB is behemothic ...
no matter how much you TJ apologists try and slice it, the marginal utility is far greater spending to upgrade the position of most need now (qb) than spending to upgrade a position of future need.
That’s basic econ 101 kid.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Well, again, we'll have to disagree on what position constitutes most need
Since I see a Seahawks defense that’s currently 27th in pass rush, and whose top pass rusher is 30. Seems like kind of a dire need to me.
Remember too that to keep Bryant they’re probably going to have to give him some serious money this offseason.
Think again
by Sportszilla on Dec 28, 2011 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
How are grading the pass rush at 27th?
The defense is currently tied for 20th in the league in sacks. How is it that you’re judging that the defense is 27th in the nebulous category of “pass rush” without using sacks as your metric?
Doesn’t appear to be a very honest assessment otherwise.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
The "Adjusted Sack Rate" accounts for
number of attempts, down and distance. 10 sacks on 100 drops is less impressive than 10 sacks on 50 drops. A sack on a 3rd-and-11 is easier to get than a sack on 2nd-and-1.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 29, 2011 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't say otherwise
But you’re trying to deny the opportunity cost is balanced as it is. We have a lot of needs, QB is just the biggest one, not the only one.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
Show me where I'm trying to deny anything ...
because I"m not.
Economics, and in many ways sports management, comes down to maximizing marginal utility does it not?
One would go about maximizing marginal utility best by using limited resources (draft picks) to improve the position of greatest present need now, not shoring up what will be the position of greatest need in the future. It’s that simple. Logic 101.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Enough with the 101s.
Cite some upper level classes already.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
No, 101 is for whoever it is applicable for ...
to claim only ESPN board members are in need of 101 schooling is pretentious, and quite frankly, wrong.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
We're just making light of
your condescending attitude. Perhaps you should chill out a bit.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
We enjoy pretension here
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How when the fundamentals appear so lacking?
Failure to grasp 101 concepts would make upper level discourse esoteric at best. Why write for such a small audience?
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
As a Certified Scrum Master, I'd just like to say that Field Gulls discussing opportunity cost
makes me proud.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 28, 2011 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
Not to be a homer.
But I think Alex Smith does have more in terms of a raw talent than does Tarvaris.
That #1 pick thing did not quite work out, but it was not a completely random thing to happen.
Yeah, but Jackson was a highly recruited kid who went to Arkansas, then transferred
He was also a 2nd round pick (even if that was considered a reach by some). Maybe Smith was more talented coming out of college, but his status as the #1 overall pick might also have something to do with insane numbers in an offensive system that was new enough that not everyone understood how spread QBs may struggle to adapt to the NFL.
Think again
All QBs drafted in first two rounds are highly regarded.
As far as I remember Alex posted faster numbers, he is taller, and probably smarter (that is hard to quantify, as only football IQ is important).
Well, it is all pretty moot, as they play on a similar level. I liked Alex’s runs better on Saturday. That probably was the difference.
I'd rather have our LBs tackle like SFs than have our QB run like Smith.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Uh, did you watch the game?
Smith burned us on the corners multiple times. He showed me some pocket presence.
And that was without Patrick Willis. Safe to say it would look better yet with him.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
Perhaps it's not TJack that needs the upgrade.
but the position coach. I looked up Carl Smiths bio on the Seahawks website and it seems he’s been around forever, but doesn’t really have any notable pro accomplishments to his credit, specifically when it comes to quarterbacks.
Very good insight
I agree with that as well, however this is also an argument for the talent that is brought in to be developed. While Holmgren was here, he brought in raw prospects with the idea that they could be developed as Hass was. History tells us that this was not particularly successful as Frye, Teel, and Wallace didn’t develop into QBotF. Not that this is always the case, but banking on the QB coach to polish a turd seems to only result in a shiny turd. What if we finally bring in a QB with pedigree and have a QB coach develop that guy? Brett Farve and Steve Young’s QB coaches get a lot of credit for his development but we can’t ignore the QB pedigree of these guys before they got to their coaches.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
I agree...
but it could also be the Smith just doesn’t speak TJacks language well. I don’t think of TJack as being a particularly cerebral quarterback like Hass, Manning, Brady, etc, but I do think he’s shown he’s very capable playing within the system PC is building, one that doesn’t rely on the QB to take over the game. He would fail in a Indy style offense where everything runs through the QB, but would probably do fairly well in a NE offense, which I think is the philosophy that PC is building.
PC seems to be a good talent evaluator and good at fitting people into a system, but not necessarily at building players, especially quarterbacks.
I’m by no means suggesting TJack is the be all end all and we don’t need to look at anyone else, I’m just throwing a different viewpoint into the discussion for y’all to digest & shit out! :)
by Kevin M Smith on Dec 27, 2011 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
TJ is not dumb.
That’s not his problem. His problem is he gets spooked. He panics under pressure.
No coach can fix that. Maybe a hypnotist and acupuncture. I don’t know. But it’s a severe limitation.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Don't think it shows up in a wiz quiz.
I say go for it.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Have you ever sparred in boxing or martial arts?
I used to practice Serrada Escrima, Filipino stick fighting. And mother fu@ker did those bastards rip the skin off your knuckles and leave you swollen for a week. After the first few times sparring, I was like Blaine Gabbert in a rugby game. But three months later, after learning the right counters, and counterstrikes, would practice sparring and close combat much more confidently – stepping into the block instead of away because of the strike’s decreased leverage with a shorter radius. I tell you I was a chicken shit that turned into a decent student in a matter of months, and all it took was the confidence of knowing the effectiveness of my skills and the positive feedback from doing things right enough times.
Have you ever been downhill skiing? Day 1, bunny slopes are a nightmare, you go to fast, you stand up, lean backwards, straighten the knees trying to slow down – it called panicking under pressure. But shit, if everyone who panicked stopped skiing, there wouldn’t be an industry. Almost anyone can spend the time learning the right technique to handle steeper slopes and harder turns and icier conditions and end up being a competent skiier.
QB is no different than many other physical skills, martial arts, skiing, bike riding, car racing or drifting, rock climbing, etc. You suck at first, but you get better with experience; learning is a combinations of steep slopes, plateaus and regressions.
The whole point of the article is that nothing about any player is static, they may progress or regress, but the rarest thing to happen would be for Tarvaris never to change given more game experience. Failing in the pocket with pressure is the only way to learn how to succeed. Am I sure Tarv can learn “pocket awareness”? No, I am not. But I am certain that a combination of coaching, confidence, and the experiences of failures and successes will change who he is as a player – and maybe for the better.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Because a professional quarterback needs your boxing and skiing skills to know how to be a professional quarterback.
by Benne on Dec 27, 2011 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
rec'd for taking an on topic off topic post completely off topic
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Again the problem with your assessment
is that TJack has had plenty of opportunity to improve but has not.
The comparable analogy would be if your were stick fighting and still getting walloped after six years of getting walloped and showing just marginal improvement while still your knuckles being swollen like balloons. TJ has had enough games under his belt by now that his pocket instincts should not be like that of a clueless rookie. To keep hoping that a guy is going to learn pocket presence after 33 starts is akin to desperately beating a dead horse. While you might have the patience for it, most of us do not.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
I have a hard time understanding how you don't think he has improved, and are dead set that he will not improve anymore.
He looks a lot better for us than he did in Minnesota, and he has looked better of late than earlier in the year.
That seems like improvement to me…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Except good quarterbacking is as much a mental as a physical skill
Skewed comparison is skewed.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 4:47 AM PST up reply actions
By the time you are in the NFL, you are not on bunny slopes anymore, Dorothy.
If you did not figure out some basic things, more likely then not you would not. Those are top notch professional athletes. You can tweak them, and put them in a position to succeed, but fundamentals flaws that are left, they are most likely there to stay.
"Professional athletes don't grow at all because they're old"
Insulting AND wrong. Nice.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 28, 2011 1:24 PM PST up reply actions
Comprehension
a : the act or action of grasping with the intellect : understanding
Where the heck did I say that they do not grow?
You know Jackson's been playing quarterback for over ten years right?
Tarvaris wouldn’t be the first quarterback to “learn” pocket presence, but he’d be in a very small minority of guys who were able to do it. Not to be mean, but your arguments for Tarvaris are basically of the one in a million, so you’re telling me there’s a chance variety.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 28, 2011 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How do you know he's not dumb?
If it looks like a duck …
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Why do so many people feel the need to speculate on a person's intelligence?
Don’t do it. Done. No longer allowed.
by BrianL on Dec 28, 2011 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Plus, who cares
Football intelligence and actual intelligence are very different things. You might be a genius, but that doesn’t mean that you can anticpate defensive skemes or tendancies. Very few can and it doesn’t directly relate to their level of book smarts.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Your viewpoint is appreciated
I think that history tells us more about the quality of a QB and the guys that coached them. The greatest QB coach in the world can’t be determined if his QBs suck. Steve Mariucci gets credit for his work with Steve Young, Andy Reid with Brett Favre, Marty Morningwheg for his work with the new passing Michael Vick. Who was a guy like Brady Quinn’s QB coach without looking it up? We don’t know or care because Quinn is the QB that he is. My point is the QB has to be good enough to develop in order to place a heavier responsibility on a QB coach to get it done.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
Am I the only one that shudders whenever someone says a QB doesn't seem "particularly cerebral" and the QB happens to be black?
It just… troubles me. I’m not calling you out on this Kevin, just pointing out that I automatically go into reflex-jerk mode when I see that.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Thank goodness.
Sometimes given the people whose opinions I hear on the street far too often, I sometimes wonder.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 10:20 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I hate it.
And every white forward is the next Larry Bird while we’re at it. Tom Gugliotta? Poor Man’s Larry Bird, but more athletic. Austin Croshere? Poor Man’s Larry Bird, but without the complete game. Dirk Nowitzki? Like Larry, only not as good a rebounder, better shooter, not as good a passer, better post up, better defender.
Blah blah blah. Always the same tired comparisons.
Why do people always classify by race? It’s the lowest common denominator.
But yeah, it drives me nuts to see someone question a players’ intelligence or heart or motivations or intangibles or whatever. It’s always someone on the outside looking in and guessing, and what exactly do you know anyway? You have no freakin’ idea. Ugh!
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 10:26 PM PST up reply actions
Don't forget,
RG3 is the new best prospect because “Cam Newton” has changed the game.
Even thought the two players are nothing alike. Newton looks like Lebron with a rocket arm. There’s only one of him. I’d be terrified to see RG3 try and jump the pile on the goal line ala Newton.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Josh Freeman is one of the most intelligent students of the game currently in the NFL
I really couldn’t care less about skin color. Some QBs depend more on intelligence, some (including, say, Romo) more on athleticism. No reason to tip-toe around it due to race.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 31, 2011 8:55 AM PST up reply actions
Thomas, you live in Europe.
Trust me, it’s a different perspective than…oh… 85% of Washington state.
I KNOW you don’t care about skin color, but believe me when I say that there absolutely is a correlation with fan sentiment that I see connecting intelligence and quarterbacks and the color of their skin. It’s a “thing” here, for whatever reason.
And I don’t like calling another person unintelligent to begin with. It irks me. Combine the two and I naturally reflex-leg kick and call out on it.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 31, 2011 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
(That's 85% of WA state by space, not population...)
Unfortunately, I’m from Olympia, which is somewhat the southern end of “metro-ish” area. And I have a great deal of family in rural WA, and went to school in Eastern WA (Central Washington U), which is similar.
And I’ve heard that sentiment far too often…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 31, 2011 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
There's plenty of racism in European sports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_association_footbal
And there are plenty of Americans who think racism isn’t a problem in America anymore, despite much evidence to the contrary.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 31, 2011 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Primarily in Eastern Europe
And there’s a lot of idiots in football stadiums, more so than regularly happens in American sports, sadly.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 5:03 AM PST up reply actions
The difference is that European football fans are organized
We have no shortage of violent or racist fans, they just don’t tend to organize into street gangs or ultranationalist political parties.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 1, 2012 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
Seattle seemed pretty ok to me when I visited
A very white town for what I’m used to (I grew up in a city that is roughly 50% immigrants, mostly muslims but with good variety).
That said, “intelligence” is indeed the wrong word to use, I think I’ve corrected people on that here myself, but “football smarts” is definitely worth talking about, and (probably because I’m European) I don’t think it’s very productive to tip-toe around the topic because of racial connotations. But then we’re veering into political debates, when it comes to “how does one cure racism”.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 5:05 AM PST up reply actions
Yup
It’s just a problematic topic and that was the point WC was trying to make.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 1, 2012 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I got it
Just don’t know if that’s the right attitude, like, nation-wide. But that’s a political topic, and not something we’re going to solve on a football blog anyway.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 2, 2012 5:51 AM PST up reply actions
We're very impressed by your enlightened views
but you don’t exactly represent the average NFL fan.
And the whole discussion of what “intelligence” doesn’t really seem to be settled theory in the scientific community, so I’m not sure why any layman would feel comfortable using using the term to make quantitative judgement about another person they have very little opportunity to observe or interact with.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 31, 2011 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
Well I don't really mean to talk about their intelligence as a whole
Just their football intelligence, their pre-and-post-snap reading ability or their tendency to fall back on their athleticism. A lot of this can be learned, studied, but some players are innately better. Freeman is a young example of high football intelligence, Tebow one of ridiculously low football intelligence. I don’t know how smart they are as people, and I don’t really care.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 5:01 AM PST up reply actions
You maybe talking in specifics
but I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard Jackson (or any other black football player) called stupid because of the way he talks. Like I said, you’re not the problem here, but the discussion does quickly become problematic.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 1, 2012 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
To the naked eye....
It seems that Carl Smith helped in some part to improve TJ’s accuracy and completion %, particularly against zone defenses as the season progressed. But Tarvaris’ decision making when blitzed, holding on to the ball too long, and throwing guys open against man coverage seems to be the same as it always has been. Again, this is my not-so-keen naked eye, but I don’t know what a QB coach is supposed to do with that.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
So who's the best QB coach in the league?
And what exactly could they do with TJ?
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I think they are already doing it: Learning theory 101
First of all, he comes to you as a student who has not been taught, or has not learned, in an effective way. So you have to start over, and ingrain all the progressions, all the reads, all the footwork, and all the throwing mechanics so that they all become instinctual and automatic. Then throw a million looks of pressure at him in practice and make him fail and succeed and see if it all takes hold. But mastery of the playbook, the progressions, the reads, the footwork, the mechanics and applying them in normal circumstances can take a lot of time, and it all needs to be there before you can deal with pressure on top of it all. And that mastery is hampered by the lack of offseason work, late signing, fluxing OL performance, inexperienced receivers, and a pectoralis injury, so you take it extra slow.
So, when you enter the season, you say to your QB, “Let’s take this one step at a time, I want you only to do what you know, and I mean KNOW, how to do.” In the first four weeks, we get to see Tarvaris standing in the pocket for what seems an eternity, watching how the receivers run their routes, the speed and timing of their movement down the field, the sharpness of their cuts, and only throwing the ball when someone is at least 5 yards open. In the next four weeks, we see the hurry up offense to let Tarvaris practice, learn, and ingrain the quick reads of the defense and the 1st receiver in the progression, avoiding the need to go through deep progressions. As the OL comes together and you devote yourself to the run in the next 4 games, you ask Tarvaris to concentrate on what he has learned so far and master it in the game, and work on the 2nd progression receivers, and Baldwin (the second read) explodes as an effective threat. In the last 4 games, you ask Tarvaris to go even deeper in the progression, and Tate, Miller, and Lynch all start to get more receptions. Now you have a QB who has practiced and learned each step in the process of being a pocket passer in a non pressure situation. This whole time, he is told “if there is pressure, whatever you do, don’t make a bad throw.”
At least that is how I interpret what I have seen on the field this year.
Then, in the offseason, you say “study and practice and visualize and throw and heal. you are the man.” And next preseason, you affirm that he has mastered all the basics, and you begin to make him relearn everything he has learned but this time with serious pocket pressure, and you teach him how to beat the OLB blitz, and the ILB blitz, and the safety blitz, and the all out blitz, and you make him repeat it over and over in practice until that too becomes automatic and instinctual.
Maybe he gets stuck, maybe he never learns it, maybe he gives up; but unless and until you try to teach him each and every step along the way, he’ll just be a below average QB who never figured it out.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
it's been said that it takes between 2000 and 5000 repetitions (practice swings)
for Tiger Woods to make the tiniest change in his golf swing, and make it stick. The world’s greatest golf athlete takes at least 12-25 days to just get used to a slightly different grip, another 12-25 days to get used to slightly different foot positioning, etc. To rebuild his swing the first time took almost 2 years, and to rebuild his swing the second time has taken at the minimum 2 years.
The fact that we think it should only take a NFL QB 33 starts (and the first reps in 33 weeks of practice and 2 preseasons) and 1000 in game passes to learn how to play the NFL game is shortsighted and minimizes the extreme expertise that is required. Yes, some players have more aptitude, a faster learning curve, and a higher ceiling. Some players also have better teachers or have better players around them. But I don’t think any regular at Fieldgulls, definitely including myself, knows enough about how to build a NFL QB to actually say that Tarvaris can’t be any better.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
by pqlqi on Dec 27, 2011 11:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How many players have taken longer than Tavaris to get their shit together?
It’s not just a matter of starts. The guy has oodles of practice time and preseason work, most of it in the same offense. That he’s still lacking in very basic awareness is a pretty good sign that it’s not just a matter of experience.
by djafrot on Dec 28, 2011 2:09 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I've seen enough to believe that Tavaris is a finished product.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
I just don't buy what you're saying ...
comparing Tarvaris to Tiger Woods is a transparently disingenuous and dishonest exercise.
Tiger has the aptitude, willpower, and perseverance required to change to improve his game. Nothing has indicated TJ has those necessary traits to be capable of improving his game, and nothing he has done so far has inspired confidence that he’s in possession of even a fraction of what’s required to change his game. There’s a reason there’s only 1 Tiger Woods.
It’s absolutely absurd for you to continue projecting TJ as some superhuman entity capable of massive improvement when he’s done NOTHING to indicate he is capable of such because, to be blunt, if he had then he would have already demonstrated as much 6 years into his career. You’re big on pie in the sky talk with your head firmly rooted in the clouds.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
There you go questioning someone else's intangibles and intelligence again.
You have no idea Tavaris’ aptitude, willpower and perseverance. And let’s not forget as you dismiss his perseverance that he played with a torn pec, an injury that many players go on the IR for, player who I might add, don’t play a position in which they need to throw and each throw causes pain.
You seem all so sure that you know everything you need to know, and can be known about the heart, intelligence, and growth potential of this 28 year old athlete with a mere 2-3 seasons of actual game playing time in the NFL.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
Because PC and JS decided that Tarvaris was the way to go, even with an injury
and all of his limitations. Maybe Charlie needs to be retaught as well, but Tarvaris looks like a 15-25 starter to me, and Charlie looks like a middle of the road 2nd stringer to me. I am not arguing that Charlie can’t be better than he is, and in fact I think he could be, but if Tarvaris improves just a fraction, he moves into the 8-15 range, and that is good enough to win with the defense and running game I see the FO building. If Charlie improves a bunch, then he is as good as TJ was this year, and then he has even further to go to be in the 8-15 range.
My personal opinion is that if TJ can be the 15th best QB in the league, that is pretty good, because of every QB that has come out of college in the last 15 years, only 14 of them are better than the 15th. That is really fucking long odds. The ideal is to get a top 5 guy, but a top 15 guy can be a cog in the wheel that gets you to the playoffs every year, and that is the first step to a superbowl.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
That's an absurd and preposterous assumption ...
You’re totally relying too much o statistics and rankings to the point of absurdity.
If there’s a huge drop off between the 14th and 15th ranked QB’s, then who are you to claim that the 15th ranked QB is “good enough” to get this team to a SB?
This is a clear case of looking at rankings as if it were to tell you anything about how good the player himself is. It’s a really poor way of considering anything.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
That's an absurd and preposterous interpretation
of my comment. I won’t engage it more than just calling you out on it.
Happy passive-aggressive new year from italy ;)
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
by pqlqi on Dec 31, 2011 1:44 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
If the choice is between Quinton Coples and Ryan Tannehill
what would you do?
Coples looks like the impact pass rusher we need. He is big enough to also slide inside to the 3 technique and fast enough to get around the edge to the QB. He is a full time starter and we have a spot for a situational pass rusher to replace Raheem Brock. He could add alot of depth and versatility to the D Line.
Tannehill, like Seneca Wallace might add some extra value because he can play WR. He is faster than most of the QB’s not named RG3 and seems accurate. He lacks experience and would need at least a year to be ready. He seems like this years Andy Dalton.
Tannehill is a project,
Dalton was considered pro-ready low ceiling. The two aren’t comparable at all.
But to answer your question, I’d take Coples and hope Tannehill was available next round.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Coples may not actually fit at anywhere
He may be too small for the 3-tech and 5-tech, too big for the LEO. I wouldn’t rule him out but I wouldn’t call him a “great fit” either. For what it’s worth, Rob and Seahawks Draft Blog thinks he doesn’t fit our OL.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 27, 2011 8:40 PM PST up reply actions
For the record
I think that what Atlanta paid is steep, but they got a dynamic player who is a huge part of what they do now. Cleveland got Jonathan Baldwin, Greg Little, Owen Marecic, and whatever 1st and 4th round picks they get next year. They needed Mercedes-quality so they paid Mercedes money. I don’t know if our young team can afford that, but if we did do it and RGIII was “the guy” then the move would be cool.
To be clear, I’m more for the Ryan Mallet option. He was drafted beneath his pedigree and the market value for 3rd string QBs fortunately isn’t set by pedigree. We forked over what: two 3rd round picks for Whitehurst? Mallet can’t be too much more than this price.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 9:27 PM PST up reply actions
we traded a 2010 2nd and a 2011 3rd for Tate and Whitehurst. Two picks, two players.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Chiefs got Baldwin, not Cleveland
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
by SSreporters on Dec 28, 2011 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
Coples: eyeball test says he has a better chance of making the impact that we need at his position rather than Tannehill at his.
I’m waiting until combine time to decide about Tannehill. He seems athletic, but his lack of experience is big. Andy Dalton won the job and was a 3-year starter at TCU. He was projected to be a low 1st round-high 2nd round guy, but that wasn’t revealed until combine time. At any rate Cam Newton (hit), Blaine Gabbert (miss), and Ryan Mallet (?) were rated ahead of Andy Dalton, however Andy Dalton improved his stock throughout the combine. I don’t think that Tarvaris is a tough QB for guys with higher draft stock to compete with, but I question whether a year would be enough time for a guy like Tannehill to seriously compete with him. And I do think that we can win games with Tarvaris.
I think it's pretty clear that we CAN'T win games with Tarvaris ...
When he’s expected to be a game manager, a job that every other backup in the league should be able to do, then the team can win in spite of him. But he’s a liability every time he’s on the field just because he can’t be depended upon, especially in the clutch. I think this season has demonstrated that fact in spades.
Tannehill has NOT impressed me in the least. The guy has has problems completing passes in the 4th quarter that are to his team and aren’t to the opposition and he flails against defenses with better talent and better athletes that can keep up with him and his offense. His resume is also simply too thin. Do the Hawks really need their QBoTF to be a guy who has only one year or so at the position? I think that’s unnecessarily risky. Plus, the way the chokes in the 4th quarter to superior talent, like the game I saw of him playing against Texas A&M, reminded me of a college Tarvaris Jackson.
That is someone the Hawks DON’T NEED.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Well, granted, an off-season of development did affect a lot of that
having to game plan and develop chemistry just isn’t easy for someone like TJack, who’s an average QB at best.
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 28, 2011 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
Assume we take Coples in round 1
and Tannehill is available in round 2 along with Chris Polk, RB who would make a nice insurance policy should Marshawn get injured. What would your choice be?
Polk and take A Davis in 3
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Interesting choices.....
Again…I personally don’t think that Tannehill is that great of QB prospect. To my eye he looks like a 4th round or later type guy. So I’d take Polk and subsequently take any qualtiy pick in a position of need before the 4th before I’d consider Tannehill. I do see that my rationale has the potential to keep us in the same cycle that we’ve been in. So to fix it, as I mentioned above, I’d either trade up for RGIII if it’s not unreasonably expensive to do so or make a play for Ryan Mallet who sits 3rd on New England’s depth chart. If neither of those are possible without mortgaging the future, then continue building the team and win as much as we can with a cheap Tarvaris until a viable, starting-caliber option presents itself.
This is the dilema we face.
There several teams that will be after RG3 including Cleveland at 3, Washington at 7, Miami at 8 and Arizona at 12. We probably have to trade up to #4 to have any chance. That will be too expensive in my view.
am not convinced RG3’s skills will translate that well to the Pro game. His running isn’t going to be utilized. Most of his running yardage comes on option plays. He doesn’t take many snaps from under center. It is mostly a spread / option offense. Furthermore, the gaudy stats look to be a result of having three speed burners to throw to deep. Not many college teams can cover his receivers. His highlight tapes don’t show alot of short or intermediate passes and nothing from under center.
Tannehill may be a better fit, IMO. He has spent the last two years in a Pro style offense and does not look to run first the way RG3 does. This makes a big difference to me. I doubt Tannehill lasts to our pick in the second round because so many teams need QB’s.
Arizona will NOT draft a QB this year in the 1st. No chance.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
He also seems to be a single-read QB as well...
I know that the “pro-style offense” theory has been used before with guys like Jake Locker, but Jake Locker demonstrated other attributes that made him a 1st rounder. Cam Newton ran a spread in Auburn as well and the same skepticism about his game translating was raised…..but look how that has turned out.
RGIII, behind Baylor’s solid but less than stellar O-Line often could be seen making multiple reads and quick decisions and doing so with accuracy. A strength of his game is that he throws deep to his speed burner receivers with that accuracy. Nonetheless, even if his game didn’t directly translate, he right now has the pedigree to actually compete with our incumbent QB. Assuming the package of picks isn’t too expensive (like no more than what Atlanta did to get Julio Jones) then I’m for it. If doing so exceeds that price then, put together a package, which I expect to be much more manageable, to acquire Ryan Mallet. And I don’t think that Tannehill could compete with Mallet on his best day.
Like an idiot I replied to the wrong post.
However I agree that it will be expensive, but he is a 3rd string QB. I don’t think that his market value can be Julio Jones expensive.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 9:31 PM PST up reply actions
Here's my earlier post so you don't have to dig for it.
I think that what Atlanta paid is steep, but they got a dynamic player who is a huge part of what they do now. Cleveland got Jonathan Baldwin, Greg Little, Owen Marecic, and whatever 1st and 4th round picks they get next year. They needed Mercedes-quality so they paid Mercedes money. I don’t know if our young team can afford that, but if we did do it and RGIII was "the guy" then the move would be cool.
To be clear, I’m more for the Ryan Mallet option. He was drafted beneath his pedigree and the market value for 3rd string QBs fortunately isn’t set by pedigree. We forked over what: two 3rd round picks for Whitehurst? Mallet can’t be too much more than this price.
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 9:37 PM PST up reply actions
Atlanta has their QBOTF, running game and decent defense, so they could afford to splurge on Jones.
Cleveland is a Factory of Sadness, so I wouldn’t look to them for shining personnel moves.
Carroll and Schneider aren’t known for bold “bank busting” moves. The Whitehurst trade is probably an exception, Schneider loved Charlie and I’m pretty sure Pete resents him for that move. I expect this year’s QB decision to follow the same precedent as last year’s: put out feelers for the top guys, and if the price is too high or the risk too risky, then settle on a TJax and just grin and bear it. If they decide the price to trade up for RG3, or trade for Flynn, is too high, they’ll just “check” (more poker metaphors!) and deal with the safest bet.
Agreed
I only brought up Cleveland to exaggerate how much value Julio Jones represents in lieu of Atlanta having all of those picks. I totally agree with you in terms of what I think our FO will do. I just think that Tarvaris will be able to beat out guys with less than 2nd round pedigree (which includes the 7th round Flynn). Mallet, I think would give him a run for his money right now, and would be worth a sizeable but realistic package. I have accepted though that this is unlikely, and the “grin and bear it” is the most likely scenario!
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 9:55 PM PST up reply actions
You regard TJ as more capable than Flynn? You're high on his koolaide.
That’s for sure.
Flynn is very highly regarded and should be a starter in this league. This is a guy who beat out a more highly regarded at the time second-round pick Brian Brohm in camp to back up Rodgers. Flynn was seen as being less talented than Brohm because of Brohm’s superior size, arm and foot speed, coupled with the fact that Brohm was selected much higher in the draft compared to Flynn.
TJ has all those physical attributes that make coaches fall in love with him and made him a 2nd round pick much like Brian Brohm that year. Matt Flynn has all the intangibles that make him a superior QB, things that TJ despite all his physical prowess, seems unable to learn like pocket presence, football IQ, knowing when to get rid of the ball, etc. Tarvaris is a very poor excuse for a starting QB and would NOT beat out those with less than a 2nd round pedigree that demonstrate that they have football IQ and the sooner you come to terms with that reality the better grip you’ll have on the reality of the situation.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
And where is Brohm?
Matt Flynn may be good, but its a guess at this point. He is like K Kolb a couple of years ago. Everyone was really excited, but didn’t really have any evidence to show that he wasn’t just a good backup who could be held up by the superior talent around him. GB is building him up to trade him for a lot and it won’t be worth it.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
He's going to be a FA.
He’s only going to cost cap space.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Forgot about that part
How does the RFA thing work in the new plan? Is he one?
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Don't think so, no
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
Dude, the guy has started 1 game (and thrown 88 passes)
In the NFL, and you’re talking about Flynn having superior intangibles? I mean, Tarvaris is playing through a fucking torn pectoral, something that I’d imagine his teammates appreciate.
This seems like a case of “the grass is always greener,” because as the poster below notes, you probably would have traded for Kolb last year too.
Think again
by Sportszilla on Dec 28, 2011 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Jackson was playing like donkey cock before he even got injured
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
by SSreporters on Dec 28, 2011 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
He only had the opening drive against the Giants, then the team stalled and he wasn't getting anything done.
And he had two picks and self destructed in the two minute offense against Atlanta.
Orrrrrrr you can look at the context and the numbers, rather than let your bias make your decision for you.
Jackson led 2 TD drives in the Giants game and was doing fine in the 3rd when he went down.
Also, I seem to remember 1 of the ATL picks was a last-second jump ball INT. Even taking that into account, his numbers were good, especially considering the competition.
by HititHere on Dec 28, 2011 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The second TD drive he "led" against New York was a 47 yard Lynch run followed by a 1 yard Lynch touchdown run.
He had a really nice drive in the second quarter when he went 6/7 for 72 yards that ended with a Robinson fumble. On his other drives he went 4/9 of 30 yards with a pick, four sacks and the Seahawk offense went three and out four times.
I still feel like you're cherry picking. The overall body of work from those 2 games is pretty good, based both on numbers and context.
Every QB will have bad drives, or bad clusters of drives. If you look at the bad drives—yeah, they’re bad. But you look at the scoring drives—they’re good! It works that way for all QBs.
Looking at the articles from around the time, it seems pretty well understood that most people were cheering solid games from T-Jax, even if they weren’t spectacular. Argue they’re still bad if you want, but it’s clear he was hitting as much of a stride as ever.
I'm not arguing they're bad, I'd agree that they were solid.
But those were two of the better performances Jackson has had this year and there was a fair share of donkey cock mixed in. My point is just that if that’s the upside, the upside is kind of meh.
"there was a fair share of donkey cock mixed in"
Oh jesus. I think I made donkey cock the new baby dick.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
Agreed there. Plenty of donkey cock mixed in for sure, especially considering the failure to lead a comeback against ATL.
So yeah, the upside is pretty unexciting. I’m just saying, overall he was closer to “decent” than “donkey cock” before he got hurt. He was successfully meh. I’d take that kind of 3 TD, 300 yard performance from our QB.
So what if he was playing with a torn pec?
You’re speaking as if a torn pec somehow interferes with TJ’s intangibles such that without it he would have superior pocket presence, know not to hold onto the ball forever, know not to throw out of bounds on 4th down, know not to take a sack and get rid of the ball immediately when there’s 12 guys in the box, know how to manage the game clock, etc …
Please don’t insult our intelligence.
Unless you think that a torn pec DOES impede a player’s football IQ, in which case you appear to have serious issues.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
Yeah, excruciating pain doesn't affect a person's brain at all.
A lot of people may agree with some of your points here, but I think you’d do well to back off your tone a little bit, and particularly statements like your last one.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 29, 2011 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I think that Flynn is very highly regarded, but all that he's had the opportunity to prove is that he is a good backup.
During the NFC Championship last year, Caleb Hanie performed admirably in place of Jay Cutler. Before his on-field dumpster fire this season, there was hope for him based on the very small body of work on him. The point is neither you or I know what low round pick will pan out, and this site regularly has posters who have many times identified the decreased success of these guys becoming starters.
The chances of unseating a second rounder do increase when the guy brought in to do it has equal or higher pedigree. Perhaps he’ll prove more with future opportunities, but at this point you’re high if Flynn’s very minute body of work tells you about “intangibles” that will definitively unseat Tarvaris as a starter. (For the record, his “intangibles” didn’t him him beat out JaMarcus Russell in direct competition) Direct competition will generally lean in favor of the experienced competitor if the skill level is generally similar. I’ve already identified earlier that a guy like Ryan Mallet, I suspect, could come in and unseat Tarvaris based upon his natural skills alone. But Mallet was the highest regarded QB in last year’s draft and would have been if he wasn’t a douche bag on the podium when addressing his off-field BS.
Flynn looks promising, but at this point you can’t assume anything more than that he is a capable backup who perhaps fell too far to be a 7th rounder. Don’t assume that because he beat out another rookie backup 2nd rounder in Brohm that he’ll snatch a starter’s job away from him. You should come to terms with that.
by darknight1281 on Dec 28, 2011 7:50 PM PST up reply actions
Food for thought....
I think one first round pick for his 3rd string QB would be too good to pass on, especially for Bellichick and his 30th ranked D!
by darknight1281 on Dec 27, 2011 9:58 PM PST up reply actions
If we gave the Pats a first for a guy we could have drafted three times over, yeah, that would be ugly.
Can you say fan revolt?
by djafrot on Dec 28, 2011 2:12 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The considered themselves ready to splurge
I disagree. Their run D is excellent but their pass D is rather mediocre by my estimation. That’s not going to get them far.
Also, Flynn is a free agent.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 4:50 AM PST up reply actions
The problem with always checking
is that eventually you need to bet on a pot or you’re going to lose your stack to antes. I think the FO realizes this and understands that, eventually, the risk of “playing it safe” is going to outweigh the risk of making a big splash.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 28, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Bellichick is a shrewd dude.
He would gladly send us a player for a couple first round picks . Then after we waist our time for a couple years take him back for a late rounder.
Wow, the debate still rages...
…months after we already figured out that PC/JS made the best QB move possible at the beginning of the season, CW proved himself the career back-up that many of you already knew (and several of us had to learn the hard way), and we have all witnessed a season of TJax’s best and his limitations (BTW, on the busted play on the 6 inch line, wasn’t Tate wide open in the endzone long before TJax neared the line of scrimmage or was tackled?)
Anyway, the only thing we have to worry about is if PC/JS are truly satisfied with their QB. Of course their not. They will draft/trade/steal somebody who promises to play the position at a higher level.
As has been pointed out, the Seahawks are approaching really goodness (all the Pro-Bowl alternates are a good indication of that). Had they had a ‘good’ QB this year, they make the play-offs. Whoever starts for Seattle next year will likely look like a pro-bowler himself, with the surrounding talent.
I can’t predict what PC/JS will do, but I bet we will be pleased.
About the 2011 Seahawks: "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep." Byron
by Hawksince77 on Dec 28, 2011 7:19 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
I agree, but that would mean that we just sit and wait
Which would leave nothing to talk about until they do it, cause the odds are it isn’t the obvious move that we are all thinking about. Except Cambell, that would be really obvious.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
I'm all for the conversation, but honestly I don't think any of us have much else left to say.
It’s rather worn out, for me, until the team makes a move. We do know they will make a move. What move, and when, I dunno.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 28, 2011 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree that they made the best QB move possible ...
I still maintain that the team would have been far better off if Charlie had played this season as the starter than TJack. The guy was never given a fair shot. TJack sucked a lot too during his first couple starts this season. The difference is that TJack was a known quantity while Charlie presented a higher potential ceiling.
I don’t think it’s fair nor conclusive to claim that Charlie “proved himself to be a career backup”. How can you say that when he was never given more than one chance to start? That’s can’t even remotely be considered a fair shot.
It would not surprise me in the least if, after this year, he moves onto another team that gives him a fair shot and demonstrates confidence in him that he proves to be a legit starting QB far superior to what TJ will ever be capable of. And if it happens then that will be totally on PC for not giving the guy a fair shot while hypocritically giving another shot to a guy who already had his fair shot and failed.
"I think we have a really good football player in Tarvaris and a terrific leader ... Tarvaris knows the offense. He’s in great command of it. He’s helping others to make adjustments and fix things ... I’m not ever worried about the critics. Ever."
--Pete Carroll
OH HELL NO BRO
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 28, 2011 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
TJ hands off to JJ.
Loss of 4 yards average.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
And when he DOES break loose, he can't even run faster than Mack Strong's top speed
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 28, 2011 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
Being risk averse leads to failure
I’m in the camp that thinks whomever the FO decides is The Guy, they need to do whatever is necessary to get him. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see that TJ is not The Guy, but a good backup. If getting The Guy means three firsts and the armpit hair of an extinct dodobird, so be it. Just get it done. Opportunity cost is a moot argument, because it has been 36 years and the Hawks have never had The Guy. What opportunity are you risking? Another 36 years of mediocrity and maybe making the playoffs so you can get ousted after the first round? Are there risks? Of course. But what is the alternative? What are we waiting for? I’m sick of play it safe half measures, and I do trust PC’s judgment. But in my opinion, he should trust his scouts and judgment, decide who is his best qbotf and go get him. Period. PC’s job will ultimately depend on whether he does or doesn’t get The Guy anyway, so why not take a risk? The reward is worth it. For once, the Hawks need to go all in, go big, or just tuck their tail and go home. My two cents.
Exactly.
The Hawks are always going to finish too strong to draft a top tier guy, and too low to be a legit and consistent contender. Until we take a risk for a real QB talent, we’re going to settle for 4th round and later guys and hope that one of them becomes another Hass. This is a self-perpetuating cycle of mediocrity. Yes we can continue building our depth and filling areas of need and yes we can win some games with Tarvaris. If we ever want to win a championship, though, history tells of more ,Bradys, Mannings, Brees(es), even Roethlisbergers, than it does Dilfers and Johnsons. We improve our chances with a higher caliber QB.
by darknight1281 on Dec 28, 2011 10:09 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
