There were more to our problems than Clausen last year

[jarhead]

At what point should Scherer and Davidson enter the discussion? There's your common denominator right there. Look at Jake 2008 vs Jake 2009, for example...

Well even Scherer admitted he messed Jake up by making him throw to a point on the field and not the receiver

[MHS831]

Well even Scherer admitted he messed Jake up by making him throw to a point on the field and not the receiver

That was huge. The talent evaluators on this board are vicious. It is too early to judge Clausen, that is all I am saying. If he was not coached properly, and there is reason to suspect it, then give a kid who threw 20+ TDs vs. 4 Ints at Notre Dame a chance. Maybe it wasn't al him. Maybe, just maybe, the climate for a rookie QB was toxic.

There are some "fans" on here who attack him personally. Call him gay and make fun of his looks. What is their reason?

John Elway started as many games as Clausen his rookie year. He only threw 4 more TD passes but he threw 5 more interceptions. He completed 47% of his passes. His QB rating was 5 points lower than Clausen's. Denver fans shouted "bust" and wanted him out.

He is in the hall of fame, and in my opinion, one of the top 5 QBs ever to have played in the NFL. He has 2 rings and amazing come-from-behind victories. Without Elway, the Broncos are laughing stocks. Some fans need to let the coaches evaluate talent and support the team.

[mav1234]

The comparisons to all time greats needs to stop. I understand, and I think everyone does, that a rookie season is just a rookie season and the stats in it mean little.

The problem with Clausen was not just his stats, it was so much more, from his command of the team on the field, to his throwing motion and mechanics, to his inability to move the ball with consistency. Can he still turn it around? Of course he can, and he'll get his chance in camp to show his improvement. But we have no reason to expect that he will turn it around and end up in the Hall of Fame.

Undoubtedly coaches played a role in the debacle that was last season. But let's stop bringing up past greats who had awful rookie seasons as a reason Clausen HAS to be better next year. If Clausen is going to be better, it'll be because of the new system and a fresh start with a year under his belt, not because Troy Aikman or John Elway were awful their rookie years.

PS: Both Elway and Aikman had at least one game that was truly fantastic and gave fans and coaches hope that he really could be something great. Clausen didn't break 200 yards and never threw more than 1 TD.

[Nicbsbll2]

Anyone that's saying Jake had any value and shouldn't have been cut from the team is absolutely delusional and their posts have no credibility what so ever.

[CRA]

Anyone that's saying Jake had any value and shouldn't have been cut from the team is absolutely delusional and their posts have no credibility what so ever.

Well, only problem with that is he was immediately puked up and wasn't exactly paid the league minimum. He had some value but at the same time I think cutting him was definately the right move

[jarhead]

Anyone that's saying Jake had any value and shouldn't have been cut from the team is absolutely delusional and their posts have no credibility what so ever.

He was paid for and did have value as a mentor.He would have been a much better placeholder of a roster spot than Pike.He may have led us to a couple more wins as well.

[Cyberjag]

The comparisons to all time greats needs to stop. I understand, and I think everyone does, that a rookie season is just a rookie season and the stats in it mean little.

The problem with Clausen was not just his stats, it was so much more, from his command of the team on the field, to his throwing motion and mechanics, to his inability to move the ball with consistency. Can he still turn it around? Of course he can, and he'll get his chance in camp to show his improvement. But we have no reason to expect that he will turn it around and end up in the Hall of Fame.

Undoubtedly coaches played a role in the debacle that was last season. But let's stop bringing up past greats who had awful rookie seasons as a reason Clausen HAS to be better next year. If Clausen is going to be better, it'll be because of the new system and a fresh start with a year under his belt, not because Troy Aikman or John Elway were awful their rookie years.

PS: Both Elway and Aikman had at least one game that was truly fantastic and gave fans and coaches hope that he really could be something great. Clausen didn't break 200 yards and never threw more than 1 TD.

Well who do you compare him to then? The multitude of players who started a ton of games as a rookie and then disappeared from NFL history? There are actually a lot more greats who started as rookies than there are Chris Weinkes out there.

Most coaches don't start rookies. Those that do tend to because they think they've got something special to work with. And despite all of the expert opinions on this board that suggest otherwise, a lot of coaches who make it to the NFL are pretty good at evaluating talent. And a lot of coaches know more about "command of the team on the field" and "throwing motion and mechanics" and "ability to move the ball with consistency" than everyone on this board put together.

Here's the bottom line with Clausen. He was a second round pick of a prior coaching staff. If he nabs the starting job, then go ahead and get excited. This staff has no reason at all to believe in him, no investment in him, and will suffer no repercussions if he flames out. So, if he nabs the starting role, history suggests that it's far more likely he will join the ranks of greats than those of duds. Again, that's IF he starts. Because if he is a dud, that will never happen.

[panthers55]

That was huge. The talent evaluators on this board are vicious. It is too early to judge Clausen, that is all I am saying. If he was not coached properly, and there is reason to suspect it, then give a kid who threw 20+ TDs vs. 4 Ints at Notre Dame a chance. Maybe it wasn't al him. Maybe, just maybe, the climate for a rookie QB was toxic.

There are some "fans" on here who attack him personally. Call him gay and make fun of his looks. What is their reason?

John Elway started as many games as Clausen his rookie year. He only threw 4 more TD passes but he threw 5 more interceptions. He completed 47% of his passes. His QB rating was 5 points lower than Clausen's. Denver fans shouted "bust" and wanted him out.

He is in the hall of fame, and in my opinion, one of the top 5 QBs ever to have played in the NFL. He has 2 rings and amazing come-from-behind victories. Without Elway, the Broncos are laughing stocks. Some fans need to let the coaches evaluate talent and support the team.

Comparing stats from 1983 to 2010 regarding quarterback performances is stupid to begin with. They played in different eras where the rules were very different. Today's rules heavily favor the quarterback and the offense so Clausen should have much better numbers than Elway and he doesn't. Completion percentage for example is not a telling stat. You can complete 70% of your passes but if you don't move the ball, move the sticks and score points it is totally irrelevant.

Here are the stats in context. Clausen threw 1 TD for every 100 passes attempted. Elway threw 1 TD for every 36 passes he threw. Elway threw 1 INT for every 18.5 passes. Clausen threw an INT every 33 passes. Elway averaged 6.4 yards a pass, Clausen 5.2 ( a huge difference).

Elway was not a great quarterback for much of his career. He went into the hall of fame for a number of reasons. One he played in Denver where the weather is difficult and cold in November and December, He played for 14 seasons and threw for 51,000 yards. He won back to back Superbowls late in his career and finished on a high note. He was also know for late game comebacks and fourth quarter heroics. Elway's starting record his rookie year- 7-4. Clausen's record-1-10.

His first 8 years in the league h is rating weremostly in the 70s. I can see how Denver fans were not that enamored. Becuase he had some great years at the end when the defense was good and they actually had a running game, doesn't mean we want to suffer for 8 years hoping his last 5 or 6 are good. A lot like saying Tampa Bay should have stayed with Steve Young because he was so great in San Francisco years later.

Clausen had the worse year of any quarterback in the league. There is no reason to believe that he is the next John Elway more so than he is the next Elvis Gurbac or the next Brady Quinn. These comparisons to hall of famers are stupid particularly when Clausen still significantly lags even these guys poor rookie performances when you look at qualitative stats versus quantitative ones.

If he plays another 13 years, wins 2 Superbowls, changes everything around and becomes a clutch player then we can look around and compare rookie years and talk about how we shouldn't have let him go or we were glad we kept him. At this point from a production point of view he isn't even the best quarterback on the team by a long shot.

[MHS831]

The comparisons to all time greats needs to stop. I understand, and I think everyone does, that a rookie season is just a rookie season and the stats in it mean little.

The problem with Clausen was not just his stats, it was so much more, from his command of the team on the field, to his throwing motion and mechanics, to his inability to move the ball with consistency. Can he still turn it around? Of course he can, and he'll get his chance in camp to show his improvement. But we have no reason to expect that he will turn it around and end up in the Hall of Fame.

Undoubtedly coaches played a role in the debacle that was last season. But let's stop bringing up past greats who had awful rookie seasons as a reason Clausen HAS to be better next year. If Clausen is going to be better, it'll be because of the new system and a fresh start with a year under his belt, not because Troy Aikman or John Elway were awful their rookie years.

PS: Both Elway and Aikman had at least one game that was truly fantastic and gave fans and coaches hope that he really could be something great. Clausen didn't break 200 yards and never threw more than 1 TD.

Why would comparisons to greats have to stop? Are you such an expert on rookie QBs that you should proclaim to end all discussion on the matter because you have deemed-in your expert opinion-Clausen to be not worthy? Isn't that a rather arrogant and uninformed approach?

If Elway had at least one great game his rookie year, then he must have MISERABLY SUCKED WORSE THAN CLAUSEN the rest of the season. Frankly, all I am saying is, "Its too early to tell." Clausen is not the starter right now, so why not wait and see? Your negativity is for losers.

I know you will call it reality--I saw inferior play too. But I have watched enough football to tell you that the conditions in which he was asked to perform could not have been worse. Say it with me: "I don't know how he will be with coaching, support, protection, and a better supporting cast."

Maybe a second round rookie QB did not live up to your definition of leadership. There are many kinds of leadership. His may develop. Jeez.

Clausen does not fit the description of the QB for this offense, so he might not work out here. But to condemn a second round rookie with 10 starts who had to play here shows either a lack of football acumen or an attitude of negativity that I hope is not shared by our new coaches.

Did you say the same things about James Anderson? He struggled as a rookie. Jake Delhomme was on the bench in NFL Europe before he got his big break and got to play behind Aaron Brooks on a bad New Orleans team. Was he a scrub 2 years later in the Super Bowl?

My Elway point was this: The fans wanted him gone. He was a first overall pick, and they begged for him to be cut after 10 games in his rookie season. His stats were WORSE than Clausen's and his situation BETTER. I bet they felt foolish later, don't you?

WHat more reason do you need to give him another look in a better situation? Do you want him to be cut right now?

[klbishop143]

There was no way Jake was staying on the team because JR was taking the team in a different direction. He purged the roster of veterans so that the rookies HAD to be played. Everyone knows Foxy doesnt trust rooks. In camp clauen was third string. He got no valuable reps until he was forced into the game. Getting pulverized and traumatized having no other NFL rep experience, i.e. first string practice reps prior to the season, surely stunted his developement last year and destroyed his confidence and in affect his teammates confidence in him. Plus knowing that the all-star reciever he was trying to feed hated his guts probably didnt help much either.

[panthers55]

Well who do you compare him to then? The multitude of players who started a ton of games as a rookie and then disappeared from NFL history? There are actually a lot more greats who started as rookies than there are Chris Weinkes out there.

Most coaches don't start rookies. Those that do tend to because they think they've got something special to work with. And despite all of the expert opinions on this board that suggest otherwise, a lot of coaches who make it to the NFL are pretty good at evaluating talent. And a lot of coaches know more about "command of the team on the field" and "throwing motion and mechanics" and "ability to move the ball with consistency" than everyone on this board put together.

Here's the bottom line with Clausen. He was a second round pick of a prior coaching staff. If he nabs the starting job, then go ahead and get excited. This staff has no reason at all to believe in him, no investment in him, and will suffer no repercussions if he flames out. So, if he nabs the starting role, history suggests that it's far more likely he will join the ranks of greats than those of duds. Again, that's IF he starts. Because if he is a dud, that will never happen.

There are just as many poor players who played their rookie years as Hall the famers. If you assume that mostly first rounders start right away and we know at least 50% are busts you can easily make the assumption without doing all the work that there are as many rookie busts as there are rookie successes.

Coaches and Scouts etc have high bust rates with quarterbacks because unlike your assertion, they don't know who is going to shine and who is going to disappoint. They can see what they like pretty easily. most of us can as well. But they are not very good at predicting who that will be.

The bottom line for Clausen is that he was unprepared, looked scared and lost, has been accused of not knowing the play book, and was the poorest Qb in the league as a starter for 10 games or more. There is no reason to believe he will be a success based on what we have seen. If he starts this year it means he is the best guy we have on our roster not that he is more highly likely to be a great players versus a dud. I am all for keeping him around and not writing him off yet given he has a 4 year contract and hopefully a better gameplan this year. But to say that if he starts he has a better chance to be great versus a dud, it more than a leap of faith.

I agree with many things you say but you are out in left field on this one.

[Nicbsbll2]

He was paid for and did have value as a mentor.He would have been a much better placeholder of a roster spot than Pike.He may have led us to a couple more wins as well.

He might have had a little value as a mentor, but as a football player he would have been the worst one on our roster. Plus, with him on the team it would have been impossible for Matt Moore, or Jimmy, or Tony, or whomever else they brought it to take over and assume the role of team leader, which is why Delhomme was released.

Plus, JR knew that if Jake was around, then no matter what players were brought in then Jake would start because "he gives us the best chance to win", which would continue to interfere with the development of any QB that's brought in.

[Cyberjag]

There are just as many poor players who played their rookie years as Hall the famers. If you assume that mostly first rounders start right away and we know at least 50% are busts you can easily make the assumption without doing all the work that there are as many rookie busts as there are rookie successes.

Coaches and Scouts etc have high bust rates with quarterbacks because unlike your assertion, they don't know who is going to shine and who is going to disappoint. They can see what they like pretty easily. most of us can as well. But they are not very good at predicting who that will be.

The bottom line for Clausen is that he was unprepared, looked scared and lost, has been accused of not knowing the play book, and was the poorest Qb in the league as a starter for 10 games or more. There is no reason to believe he will be a success based on what we have seen. If he starts this year it means he is the best guy we have on our roster not that he is more highly likely to be a great players versus a dud. I am all for keeping him around and not writing him off yet given he has a 4 year contract and hopefully a better gameplan this year. But to say that if he starts he has a better chance to be great versus a dud, it more than a leap of faith.

I agree with many things you say but you are out in left field on this one.

We're going to continue to disagree then. I still believe that NFL scouts and coaches know more than all of us. They spend more time studying film, they have more film, they have practice sessions, they have inside knowledge of what was actually supposed to happen, they're more experienced, etc... A big difference from our perspective is the short memory for who's posted what versus the long memory for what coaches have thought. How many "Davis is a bust" threads where there in Thomas Davis' first two years? No one is willing to claim one now, but there were plenty of them.

That's why I'll care more about the criticism of Clausen only after the current staff gives up on him. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying it isn't definitive.

On the other point, rookie QBs who start, I wrote what I did based on two things. First, I went to ProFootballReference.com and looked at all the modern era QBs I could think of to compare their second year to their rookie one (yes, I'm an obsessive researcher). What I found was pretty interesting.

First, starting as a rookie isn't that common, but it's not really as rare as I thought. Second, when you do start as a rookie and struggle, you better be a really high draft pick or you're not starting again in your second year (think Weinke vs. Alex Smith). Both of those are not just backed up by the stats, they're grounded in common sense.

Among QBs who struggle as rookies but continue to start, MOST make dramatic improvements. A few do not, and among those the ones that continue to start almost always end up as big stars (think Aikman as a perfect example here). Again, common sense. If you suck, you don't get another chance. If you do get another chance, and you continue to play poorly, there has to be something compelling that gives the coaches a reason to start you again, and eventually that comes through. Yes, there are some David Carrs out there. But most players who get that second chance end up playing out nice careers, many of them very good.

Here's your list of players who either started at least 8 games or attempted 200 passe in both of their first two years, along with their ratings for first and second years. Average improvement in year two was 14%.

1980 - Steve Fuller, 55.85 to 76.43

1980 - Phil Simms, 65.97 to 58.89

1981 - Joe Montana, 87.78 to 88.36

1981 - David Woodley, 63.12 to 69.82

1982 - Neil Lomax, 59.9 to 70.11

1984 - John Elway, 54.9 to 76.84

1984 - Dan Marino, 95.97 to 108.94

1985 - Warren Moon, 76.88 to 68.5

1985 - Ken O'Brien, 73.96 to 96.24

1986 - Bernie Kosar, 69.25 to 83.8

1987 - Jim Kelly, 83.27 to 83.81

1987 - Jack Trudeau, 53.49 to 75.35

1989 - Steve Beuerlein, 66.56 to 78.45

1990 - Troy Aikman, 55.68 to 66.61

1991 - Jeff George, 73.84 to 73.82

1992 - Neil O'Donnell, 78.76 to 83.59

1994 - Drew Bledsoe, 64.96 to 73.57

1994 - Rick Mirer, 67.01 to 70.23

1996 - Kerry Collins, 62.05 to 79.4

1997 - Tony Banks, 70.97 to 71.5

1998 - Jake Plummer, 73.07 to 75.03

1999 - Charlie Batch, 83.46 to 84.14

1999 - Peyton Manning, 71.21 to 90.69

2000 - Jeff Garcia, 77.91 to 97.58

2000 - Donovan McNabb, 60.11 to 77.84

2003 - David Carr, 62.82 to 69.5

2003 - Joey Harrington, 59.91 to 63.91

2003 - Patrick Ramsey, 71.82 to 75.85

2004 - Kyle Boller, 62.35 to 70.86

2004 - Byron Leftwich, 73.05 to 82.21

2005 - Carson Palmer, 77.29 to 101.1

2005 - Ben Roethlisberger, 98.14 to 98.55

2007 - Vince Young, 66.73 to 71.08

2008 - Trent Edwards, 70.39 to 85.41

2 out of 3 in that list went on to play and start for years. I just went back to 1980, although I have data going back to the 30s. And obviously, I don't have numbers for 2009 or 2010 yet.

Basically, my point is simple. We're in a rookie starter situation that a lot of teams have seen, including this one. And in a way, the deck is stacked against Clausen. We have a coaching staff with nothing invested in him. He's not a high pick. If he busts, the repercussions will be few. So, if he does land the starting job, it will probably be even more about talent than with your average poor rookie given a second chance.

History is pretty clear on this. QBs who struggle as rookies, but continue to get starts, are twice as likely to go on to successful careers than they are to bust. And in this group (probably because the rarity of that second chance), there's a better chance to be a very good player than just a decent one--what coach wants to take a risk for mediocrity?

So in that light, if Clausen does win the job there's a lot of reason for optimism. You may disagree with me on the chance he actually does win it, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from regarding the rest of it. :)

[Cyberjag]

There are just as many poor players who played their rookie years as Hall the famers. If you assume that mostly first rounders start right away and we know at least 50% are busts you can easily make the assumption without doing all the work that there are as many rookie busts as there are rookie successes.

Coaches and Scouts etc have high bust rates with quarterbacks because unlike your assertion, they don't know who is going to shine and who is going to disappoint. They can see what they like pretty easily. most of us can as well. But they are not very good at predicting who that will be.

The bottom line for Clausen is that he was unprepared, looked scared and lost, has been accused of not knowing the play book, and was the poorest Qb in the league as a starter for 10 games or more. There is no reason to believe he will be a success based on what we have seen. If he starts this year it means he is the best guy we have on our roster not that he is more highly likely to be a great players versus a dud. I am all for keeping him around and not writing him off yet given he has a 4 year contract and hopefully a better gameplan this year. But to say that if he starts he has a better chance to be great versus a dud, it more than a leap of faith.

I agree with many things you say but you are out in left field on this one.

We're going to continue to disagree then. I still believe that NFL scouts and coaches know more than all of us. They spend more time studying film, they have more film, they have practice sessions, they have inside knowledge of what was actually supposed to happen, they're more experienced, etc... A big difference from our perspective is the short memory for who's posted what versus the long memory for what coaches have thought. How many "Davis is a bust" threads where there in Thomas Davis' first two years? No one is willing to claim one now, but there were plenty of them.

That's why I'll care more about the criticism of Clausen only after the current staff gives up on him. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying it isn't definitive.

On the other point, rookie QBs who start, I wrote what I did based on two things. First, I went to ProFootballReference.com and looked at all the modern era QBs I could think of to compare their second year to their rookie one (yes, I'm an obsessive researcher). What I found was pretty interesting.

First, starting as a rookie isn't that common, but it's not really as rare as I thought. Second, when you do start as a rookie and struggle, you better be a really high draft pick or you're not starting again in your second year (think Weinke vs. Alex Smith). Both of those are not just backed up by the stats, they're grounded in common sense.

Among QBs who struggle as rookies but continue to start, MOST make dramatic improvements. A few do not, and among those the ones that continue to start almost always end up as big stars (think Aikman as a perfect example here). Again, common sense. If you suck, you don't get another chance. If you do get another chance, and you continue to play poorly, there has to be something compelling that gives the coaches a reason to start you again, and eventually that comes through. Yes, there are some David Carrs out there. But most players who get that second chance end up playing out nice careers, many of them very good.

Here's your list of players who either started at least 8 games or attempted 200 passe in both of their first two years, along with their ratings for first and second years. Average improvement in year two was 15%. Most of the ones who really stunk it up got a lot better. But of course, we could have another Craig Welihan on our hands.

1980 - Steve Fuller, 55.85 to 76.43

1980 - Phil Simms, 65.97 to 58.89

1981 - David Woodley, 63.12 to 69.82

1982 - Neil Lomax, 59.9 to 70.11

1983 - Dave Wilson, 46.06 to 68.68

1983 - Jim McMahon, 79.88 to 77.56

1983 - Mike Pagel, 62.43 to 63.99

1984 - Tony Eason, 48.44 to 93.42

1984 - John Elway, 54.9 to 76.84

1984 - Dan Marino, 95.97 to 108.94

1985 - Boomer Esiason, 62.95 to 93.18

1985 - Warren Moon, 76.88 to 68.5

1985 - Ken O'Brien, 73.96 to 96.24

1986 - Bernie Kosar, 69.25 to 83.8

1986 - Jay Schroeder, 73.81 to 72.86

1987 - Jim Kelly, 83.27 to 83.81

1987 - Jack Trudeau, 53.49 to 75.35

1989 - Steve Beuerlein, 66.56 to 78.45

1989 - Mark Rypien, 85.22 to 88.11

1990 - Troy Aikman, 55.68 to 66.61

1990 - Rodney Peete, 67.02 to 79.79

1991 - Jeff George, 73.84 to 73.82

1992 - Neil O'Donnell, 78.76 to 83.59

1994 - Drew Bledsoe, 64.96 to 73.57

1994 - Rick Mirer, 67.01 to 70.23

1996 - Kerry Collins, 62.05 to 79.4

1997 - Tony Banks, 70.97 to 71.5

1998 - Jake Plummer, 73.07 to 75.03

1998 - Craig Whelihan, 58.29 to 47.96

1999 - Charlie Batch, 83.46 to 84.14

1999 - Peyton Manning, 71.21 to 90.69

2000 - Ryan Leaf, 38.97 to 56.21

2000 - Tim Couch, 73.17 to 77.34

2000 - Jeff Garcia, 77.91 to 97.58

2000 - Donovan McNabb, 60.11 to 77.84

2000 - Cade McNown, 66.71 to 68.54

2001 - Aaron Brooks, 85.72 to 76.4

2002 - Quincy Carter, 62.97 to 72.31

2002 - Mike McMahon, 69.87 to 52.37

2002 - Michael Vick, 62.74 to 81.62

2003 - David Carr, 62.82 to 69.5

2003 - Joey Harrington, 59.91 to 63.91

2003 - Patrick Ramsey, 71.82 to 75.85

2003 - Marc Bulger, 101.5 to 81.38

2004 - Kyle Boller, 62.35 to 70.86

2004 - Byron Leftwich, 73.05 to 82.21

2005 - Carson Palmer, 77.29 to 101.1

2005 - Ben Roethlisberger, 98.14 to 98.55

2005 - Eli Manning, 55.45 to 75.86

2006 - Alex Smith, 40.85 to 74.76

2007 - Matt Leinart, 74 to 61.87

2007 - Vince Young, 66.73 to 71.08

2007 - Jason Campbell, 76.5 to 77.62

2008 - Trent Edwards, 70.39 to 85.41

2 out of 3 in that list went on to play and start for years. I just went back to 1980, although I have data going back to the 30s. And obviously, I don't have numbers for 2009 or 2010 yet, but I'm sure Ryan and Flacco would be enough to offset Russell. :)

Basically, my point is simple. We're in a rookie starter situation that a lot of teams have seen, including this one. And in a way, the deck is stacked against Clausen. We have a coaching staff with nothing invested in him. He's not a high pick. If he busts, the repercussions will be few. So, if he does land the starting job, it will probably be even more about talent than with your average poor rookie given a second chance.

History is pretty clear on this, and I like history more than the emotion of the moment. QBs who struggle as rookies, but continue to get starts, are twice as likely to go on to successful careers than they are to bust. And in this group (probably because the rarity of that second chance), there's a better chance to be a very good player than just a decent one--what coach wants to take a risk for mediocrity?

So in that light, if Clausen does win the job there's a lot of reason for optimism. You may disagree with me on the chance he actually does win it, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from regarding the rest of it. :)