Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Delhomme, Anderson, McCown, and Cassel; A Comparison


TerriblePizza

Recommended Posts

Alright, these names have all been thrown around so far as potential QBs to go for/keep for next season. I think it would be prudent to at least compare some stats. So, I've chosen each of their best season based on passer rating so that people may compare their stats.

I've also included height, weight, and age so that can be taken into account as well.

All stats have been pulled directly from NFL.com

Jake Delhomme (6'2", 215) 34 years old

Best Season: 88.1 QB rating (2005)

262/435 (60.2%) 3,421yds 24tds/16ints, 12 fumbles, 5 lost

http://www.nfl.com/players/jakedelhomme/profile?id=DEL367367

Josh McCown (6'4", 215) 29 years old

Best Season: 74.1 QB rating (2004)

13 games started, 233/408 (57.1%) 2,511yds 10tds/11ints, 12 fumbles, 5 lost

http://www.nfl.com/players/joshmccow...e?id=MCC600777

Derek Anderson (6'6", 230) 25 years old

Best Season: 82.5 QB rating (2007)

15 games started, 298/527 (56.5%) 3,787yds 29tds/19ints, 5 fumbles, 2 lost

http://www.nfl.com/players/derekande...e?id=AND180512

Matt Cassel (6'4", 230) 26 years old

Best Season: 89.4 QB rating (2008)

15 games started, 327/516 (63.4%) 3,693yds 21tds/11ints, 7 fumbles, 4 lost

http://www.nfl.com/players/mattcassel/profile?id=CAS541133

So, looking at these stats, all three have posted comparable QB ratings, yards, and TDs/INTs.

Out of all three (not including Delhomme), Anderson has the best size and he is also the youngest.

Anderson also arguable has the stronger arm out of the group.

McCown has the most experience out of the three, having started 31 games.

Finally, Cassel has the best accuracy out of the bunch with a 63.4% completion rating but arguably had the better supporting cast around him during the games started.

So, in conclusion, all of them, Jake included, have their upsides especially with such comparable stats. In my opinion, Anderson has the greater upside with his physical size, age, and stats based on the supporting stats.

Also, this all assuming Cassel and Anderson become free agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won't get Cassell, too much $$$ after the season he just had and I suspect the Patriots are going to Franchise him which means we would have to trade and trade BIG for him... of the rest, as much as it pains me to say this right now, I would stick with Jake.

Anderson is too much of an unknown and McCown doesn't have the experience and Jake (even though he sucked donkey nuts last weekend) is our leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a LOT of big "if"s for this.

I just wanted to have some of the facts out there instead of more of "No, because he's from such and such team." or "No, he just sucks."

I'd rather see some debate with a little facts than just a flat no.

Anyways. IF a lot of these IFs happen, Anderson is my choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rofl. Thanks. Or, it makes it more likely that we'll go draft/undrafted free agent.

Oh, I'm sure we'll sign somebody. But unless someone just falls into our lap like Jake did a few years ago, it'll most likely just be more camp fodder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won't get Cassell, too much $$$ after the season he just had and I suspect the Patriots are going to Franchise him which means we would have to trade and trade BIG for him... of the rest, as much as it pains me to say this right now, I would stick with Jake.

Anderson is too much of an unknown and McCown doesn't have the experience and Jake (even though he sucked donkey nuts last weekend) is our leader.

Just asking, but why would the Pats franchise Cassell? Doesn't a franchised player get the equivalent of what the 5 highest paid players in the league at the position are making? If so, no way they franchise Cassell with Brady in the flock, that's rare air...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Really?  Back to this again? How many times have I said that I’d prefer to trade back from #1? Too many to count, but as I’ve pointed out, that’s going to be much easier said than done, as once we signal we want to trade back, teams will know we don’t want any of the QBs and they’d target the 2nd pick in a trade instead. All of my “T-Mac at #1” talk has been discussed under two circumstances… the first being that no QB or DE pop before the draft, and that we can’t trade back. But again, I know you don’t like to actually read that stuff when I say it, as I’ve said it numerous times.
    • Thanks for posting this. While this was far from a great performance, this critique shows what some of us noticed last week. Bryce played "a little better". There is some talent there. But, as you pointed out we really don't have a great pass blocking line for dropping back each down when we are behind. BY has got some bad habits and physical limitations. At times his teammates let him down. The play calling isn't always the best. I hope he can learn from last week and show us some improvement in the Saints game.
    • Oh, and yes, I’d take a WR first in this upcoming draft, but again, that’s not in a vacuum I wouldn’t have taken him over the QBs this past year or likely the ones next year either. It’s all relative to who is available in a specific draft, and I don’t think any of the QB’s are worth the risk at #1 this year. Also the fact that you’ve said you would take T-Mac #2 but scoff at him going #1 is just in itself, super weird.  How you can justify a player at #2 but not #1 solely because of their position and with complete disregard to the other players available, is absolutely crazy town talk
×
×
  • Create New...