A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season

[panthers55]

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

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

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

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

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

You guys can do better. LOL

[koolkatluke]

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

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

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

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

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

You guys can do better. LOL

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

[panthers55]

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

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

[Seamonk]

I just want a QB with a pair of balls.

[MaineManPanther]

I thought there were some decent arguments in here. Who cares if its trivial? It's a sports forum.

[Urrymonster]

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

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

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

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

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

You guys can do better. LOL

I agree with the sentiment, but what happens if two QBs throw to the WRs equally, yet one uses the TE to try and get it into the end zone, whereas the other tried the WR. Both score a similar amount of points, both give up similar points through interceptions.

Equally, if points are the be all and end all, it doesn't matter who scores them. So when you actually think about it, the TDs are irrelevant, as long as they are scored. This is why I personally feel the distribution and yardage of passes is more significant to 'who was getting the most' out of the receivers, because you get the ball in the endzone by the best means, be that by a HB, FB, TE or WR.

Two identical passes, one has the route finishing at the goal line where the player just gets in, the other is a mid field where he is tackled in exactly the same fashion. Which is actually getting more out of the receiver? Considering the receiver has done exactly the same thing in both instances.

[Mr ocho nueve]

Clausen could put up good numbers next year and people will still call for his head

[panthers55]

I agree with the sentiment, but what happens if two QBs throw to the WRs equally, yet one uses the TE to try and get it into the end zone, whereas the other tried the WR. Both score a similar amount of points, both give up similar points through interceptions.

Then it is a wash and doesn't matter. if they are playing the Panthers they better throw to the TEs who will be open all day, LOL

Equally, if points are the be all and end all, it doesn't matter who scores them. So when you actually think about it, the TDs are irrelevant, as long as they are scored. This is why I personally feel the distribution and yardage of passes is more significant to 'who was getting the most' out of the receivers, because you get the ball in the endzone by the best means, be that by a HB, FB, TE or WR.

Points for and points again are the "be all and end all"- the only stat that matters really. So as I said the number of points the offense scores is the most important stat. There are others. If like the Panthers in 2008, the quarterback drove us into the redzone all day but the running backs scored all the TDs then the QB did a good job even if he only throws for one TD a game. But what happens when you don't score points by any means. Is that quarterback effective?

Two identical passes, one has the route finishing at the goal line where the player just gets in, the other is a mid field where he is tackled in exactly the same fashion. Which is actually getting more out of the receiver? Considering the receiver has done exactly the same thing in both instances.

So in the first case the quarterback sets up the team to score and barring an INT or fumble will get points- job well done. In the second case it depends on what happens next. If he throws 3 incompletions and punts the ball but moved it from deep in the hole to the 50, at least he swapped field position. But the drive went no where and the team punts the ball. In essence the pass is not nearly as important as the first one since you got nothing out of it. That is why guys say stats are for losers. It doesn't mean that stats are irrelevant simply that the object is to score more points than your opponent not put up great numbers but lose by 25 points because you couldn't score points in the redzone.

Again for me much of your argument is irrelevant unless it is in the context of what matter in football which is moving the chains, and getting into scoring position. The exception as noted above is when you flip field position which can help you even if you don't score points.

So how did your quarterbacks fare on the statistics I mentioned??

[Jackofalltrades]

Rookie, crap offense, etc.

Looking at reality isn't sugar coating.

[panthers55]

Clausen could put up good numbers next year and people will still call for his head

If we continue to score 10 points a game and lose by double digits you are absolutely right. If we score 10 points but only give up 3 a game and win 10 games, he will be the hero. In the end it is wins and losses that matter. People are unhappy because he won 1 game in 10 starts and couldn't lead us on winning drives when it mattered most of the year. Individual pass stats are not that important. If we wanted a Qb who could put up yards but lose by 20 points we would have kept Weinke.

[Carolinator]

omg a rookie had a bad year please call 9-1-1

[Urrymonster]

Then it is a wash and doesn't matter. if they are playing the Panthers they better throw to the TEs who will be open all day, LOL

Points for and points again are the "be all and end all"- the only stat that matters really. So as I said the number of points the offense scores is the most important stat. There are others. If like the Panthers in 2008, the quarterback drove us into the redzone all day but the running backs scored all the TDs then the QB did a good job even if he only throws for one TD a game. But what happens when you don't score points by any means. Is that quarterback effective?

So in the first case the quarterback sets up the team to score and barring an INT or fumble will get points- job well done. In the second case it depends on what happens next. If he throws 3 incompletions and punts the ball but moved it from deep in the hole to the 50, at least he swapped field position. But the drive went no where and the team punts the ball. In essence the pass is not nearly as important as the first one since you got nothing out of it. That is why guys say stats are for losers. It doesn't mean that stats are irrelevant simply that the object is to score more points than your opponent not put up great numbers but lose by 25 points because you couldn't score points in the redzone.

Again for me much of your argument is irrelevant unless it is in the context of what matter in football which is moving the chains, and getting into scoring position. The exception as noted above is when you flip field position which can help you even if you don't score points.

So how did your quarterbacks fare on the statistics I mentioned??

I don;t have time to look at it completely, but both were around 12-14 points scored per game. However hopefully tomorrow (I live in England) I will break down exactly who scored what from what drives.

Still it looks pretty similar once again, so whilst Moore scored 5 TDs in that period, the other areas were not as strong. So considering what you said, Clausen did a job by getting the running game going and scoring, along with the additional field goals. He personally didn;t score, but the numbers are pretty much the same.

Obviously this is provisional and is discounting defensive scores etc.

Should be interesting.

[panthers55]

I don;t have time to look at it completely, but both were around 12-14 points scored per game. However hopefully tomorrow (I live in England) I will break down exactly who scored what from what drives.

Still it looks pretty similar once again, so whilst Moore scored 5 TDs in that period, the other areas were not as strong. So considering what you said, Clausen did a job by getting the running game going and scoring, along with the additional field goals. He personally didn;t score, but the numbers are pretty much the same.

Obviously this is provisional and is discounting defensive scores etc.

Should be interesting.

I look forward to it. As for me the whole argument about who is better Moore or Clausen is like debating what is tastier- dog poop or cat poop. In the end both are pretty crappy. if Moore gets resigned then it might be slightly relevant. If Moore is gone and Clausen stays because one is under contract and the other isn't, then it doesn't matter.

[panthers55]

I thought there were some decent arguments in here. Who cares if its trivial? It's a sports forum.

And if this was the first thread about this, it might be interesting. But how many of these threads will we see? This is old news and not even relevant if Moore isn't resigned. It is about as important as debating who was better as a rookie- Weinke in 2001 or Clausen in 2010.