I don't think it takes a miracle to get a QB to succeed. Sanchez, despite claims to the contrary, WAS a successful QB in the NFL, both with the Jets and the Eagles. No, he isn't/wasn't as successful as some elite QBs, but there are a handful of QBs that started for teams that went to the AFC Championship game two years in a row and he is one of them. As far as Rex Ryan needing to be a miracle worker to get QBs to succeed, you may be right because it would have taken a miracle worker to get the Jets offense, as it was constituted (crappy receivers, crappy OL) to succeed with ANY QB under center. That was the case with Sanchez in 2011 onward and with Geno Smith. A QBs play cannot completely compensate for talent deficiencies all around the offensive unit, something that the Sanchez and Geno haters continually fail to accept. Tebow was not a starter for the Jets or anyone after Denver, proving that there are exceptions to every rule. Me, personally, I don't understand how Jets fans could NOT be a fan of Smith, beyond the whole "a Black QB must be 1.5 times better than any alternatively raced QB to be considered worthy..." which, of course, is pretty much the case for any judgment made of Black men in this country.
Hmm, even Joe Namath posted a QBR of 0.0: Joe Namath[40] 12/12/1976 New York Jets Cincinnati Bengals L 42-3 4 15 20 4 2nd career 0.0 game, first time that starter and replacement (Todd) both have zero in same game So, please, let's not get caught up in meaningless statistics that you really haven't researched adequately.
A total irrelevancy but not surprising given your posting history and affiliation for Geno over the team. But I'll indulge you--I was making a comment about how stupid it is to throw out a perfect game as some evidence of anything with respect to a QBs talent--ESPECIALLY if the same dude threw a zero point zero a few weeks earlier. I know all about Namath, he is my all time favorite Jet and while I recognize he put up a 0.0, so did many other great QBs. It happens. Doesn't excuse what Geno did unless you need some weak validation for your hero. Yes, a perfect QB rating IS a meaningless stat, thank you. Try researching the thread before you make stupid comments. _
How is Joe Willie's 0.0 QBR rating irrelevant? The notion is that only "bad" QBs post 0.0 QBRs, which, clearly isn't true. the 1976 Jets team wasn't very good, ALL AROUND, and that is why the Jets only Super Bowl QB and HOFer posted a 0.0 QBR (as did Richard Todd in that game). But, sure, Joe's o.0 is irrelevant but Smith's is...because, let's face it, your logic is faulty and you're a Smith Hater. Anyway, this whole conversation is pointless: Either Smith will be better or he won't. All this bullshit talk, positive and negative, don't mean shit!! It's just a vehicle for people to post trivial nonsense. I'm a Smith fan because he has the talent and has shown it, just like the TWO OCs coaching him have stated. They agree with ME. They don't agree with you.
Because you don't understand logic, that's why. Because you are blinded by your Geno man love. It's ok. I was blinded by Sanchez. _
I agree with your post but the last sentence, I don't think means shit. If you have an ugly baby you don't go around saying it publicly you try to talk about as positively as possible about your ugly baby. Morningwood and Gailey's comments might very well just be a case of dealing with having an ugly baby. I am not a Smith hater just trying to keep it real. I think he throws a nice ball the problem is he's been throwing that nice ball to the other team too much. Like you say though all this conversation becomes irrelevant once they start lacing them up. He's going to be better or not . It's gut check time in his career.
Introducing your homosexual predilections really doesn't advance your argument and shows the lack of depth of both your argument and, overall, your intellect. And, please, don't attempt to attribute your own dirty sordid bullshit homosexual feelings to me. Thanks, JFag.
That same QB posted a 0.00 passer rating in the season and was 29th ranked QB in passer rating for the year. He also had a 7.6 last year and an 8.3 and a 10.1 the prior year when he was the lowest ranked QB as far as QB rating. For 2 seasons his QBR is 71.5
proof that even a blind squirrel finds a nut. "the Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" : http://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/dp/0307275175
Wow, a coherent argument...props to you. IMO, a 71.5 QBR for a Jets team that lacked serious receivers and A Gap protection isn't terrible, especially for a rookie/2nd-year QB. It's not good, but it's not all that bad, a sentiment obviously shared by the current coaching staff and more than a couple of experts. BTW, once the Jets addressed their A Gap protection issues (Winters got injured) and shored up their receiving corps (Decker healthy, the Harvin trade with Seattle) Smith was among the leaders in QBR, not surprisingly. Smith is on upswing. Maybe the haters better get on the train before it leaves the station. (or, you can wait until it gets to your stop...)
Sorry, I have no experience with having an ugly baby... I think the ugly baby was OG and WR during Smith first two years...And nobody has said anything good about those units until they actually addressed the deficiencies. Then again, nobody has even asked about them because we have a perfectly good scapegoat in Smith. That said, I believe these OCs wouldn't bother naming him the starter if they didn't believe in his talent.
Look, you have an infatuation with Geno. I never suggested it was homosexual but now that you brought it up, I'm happy for you. It's very courageous. Own it. It will set you free. Like Caitlyn Jenner or that faux black chick. You still don't understand how what a QB 40 years ago did has no bearing on what Geno did, but whatever. _
Smart move banning Junc so that there would be no more silly off topic discussion. QBR is definitely unbiased, but there is no way you could watch Geno last year and have any positive thoughts.
I'm all for a true Qb competition, something we haven't seen here for a long, long time. But if we just give the job to somebody: it should be Fitz!
QBR as in ESPN's Total QBR or the traditional Quarterback Rating? ESPN's QBR is totally biased and subjective. The traditional Quarterback Rating is unbiased and scientific. _
Is QBR not a statistic that is calculated the same for every player? I'm not saying its a good statistic, or that the formula makes sense. Unless it is calculated differently for different players, I'm not sure how we can say its biased. Is the formula for it even online?
Two different "statistics". Quarterback Rating--sometimes incorrectly referenced as "QBR" is scientific and calculated the same for all QBs. Generally accepted by everyone in the football community other than ESPN. ESPN's "QBR" or Total QBR is unscientific, biased and looks at things like Clutch Index, Win Probabilty and Dividing Credit. It's a made up farce that no one, other than ESPN and one poster here uses. _
In total QBR someone at ESPN decides how clutch certain plays were and how much credit a QB should get for a catch whether the O line gets more credit, the WR, the QB. Human decision, not stats, comes into play and thus bias.
And someone makes a subjective decision whether the QB was under a LOT of pressure, a LITTLE pressure or no pressure and grades passes accordingly, then looks at how far passes traveled in the air--and oh yeah, TD passes thrown in the first quarter mean less than TD passes thrown in the 4th quarter. It's made up. _
