OILERMAN Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 you can't expect a QB to completely mask every shortcoming a team has that you claimed Wilson Luck and RG3 did. I claimed no such thing. Your entire post has all kinds of false absolutes..... The Seahawks had a great defense and running game the season before Wilson got there. I wonder why they turned into a contender last year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Like Wilson, RGIII and Luck you mean? It has absolutes yeah, but is this quote not referencing that Wilson, Luck and RGIII did this in their first year.... "A good QB can elevate a roster and mask team deficiencies like no other position in sports.". I understand your point that they made their team better but it is a stretch to say that those QBs masked the teams deficiencies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 There is suddenly this false premise than Locker was showing all kinds of promise before his injury and then fell apart after the injury. Jake Locker completed 51% of his passes(about the same as 2011) in preseason and had a 71 passer rating. Those are pitiful numbers for a starting QB vs. preseason defenses, he looked equally bad at times in the regular season. Can he improve? Sure. But to act like the supporting cast was letting him down is totally inaccurate. Sure the team had plenty of problems but anyone thinking that the young QBs did well because they were carried and Locker struggled because he was let down didn't watch the games. No1TitansFan, Number9, and Denali 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 It has absolutes yeah, but is this quote not referencing that Wilson, Luck and RGIII did this in their first year.... "A good QB can elevate a roster and mask team deficiencies like no other position in sports.". Post the link that quote was made in...... And I believe that quote 100% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 It's all about selective memory for the people who are crazy optimistic to be honest. I'm hoping Locker does well and have seen enough out of him in the 6 or 7 games he has looked good in (this includes the games he came in for Hass 2 years ago against prevent Ds minus the final 2:00 of the saints game) to have no reason to call him a bust yet. I think the whole supporting cast argument stems from people wanting a built-in excuse for any reason to doubt Locker along with people having a (legitimate for some young guys) reason to downplay the excellent play of other young QBs. I can't wait to see Locker play and have hope but you can tell more and more people are getting truly worried. You are so far off it's not even remotely funny. Organizations do not pay a king's ransom or mortgage their futures to find a QB because they are only as good as the team around them. A good QB can elevate a roster and mask team deficiencies like no other position in sports. That is why they are coveted to the degree they are. That's the part I was harping on, you were probably only referencing to how much better the QBs made the team though. Denali 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 It's all about selective memory for the people who are crazy optimistic to be honest. I'm hoping Locker does well and have seen enough out of him in the 6 or 7 games he has looked good in (this includes the games he came in for Hass 2 years ago against prevent Ds minus the final 2:00 of the saints game) to have no reason to call him a bust yet. I think the whole supporting cast argument stems from people wanting a built-in excuse for any reason to doubt Locker along with people having a (legitimate for some young guys) reason to downplay the excellent play of other young QBs. I can't wait to see Locker play and have hope but you can tell more and more people are getting truly worried. That's the part I was harping on, you were probably only referencing to how much better the QBs made the team though. Notice the use of the word can. My statement is 100% accurate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denali Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 It's not CJ, it's the OL. It's not VY, it's the coaches. It's not Locker, it's the receivers. Blah blah blah ... I could imagine a similar type of argument made in defense of a burglar's actions, where it would be the homeowner's fault because they made their home too easy to break into. OILERMAN 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 The most interesting thing about Jamal's post is that drops are correlated with bad QBs. Let's not use that excuse again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 The most interesting thing about Jamal's post is that drops are correlated with bad QBs. Let's not use that excuse again. I said that from the start, amazing how the QBs throwing bad passes have the most drops Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragidealist Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 There is suddenly this false premise than Locker was showing all kinds of promise before his injury and then fell apart after the injury. Jake Locker completed 51% of his passes(about the same as 2011) in preseason and had a 71 passer rating. Those are pitiful numbers for a starting QB vs. preseason defenses, he looked equally bad at times in the regular season. Can he improve? Sure. But to act like the supporting cast was letting him down is totally inaccurate. Sure the team had plenty of problems but anyone thinking that the young QBs did well because they were carried and Locker struggled because he was let down didn't watch the games. Bullshit The other young qbs were carried by their rb. CJ was shit early. The stats back that up. Unless anyone thinks rg3 and Wilson are just more accurate than luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragidealist Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) The most interesting thing about Jamal's post is that drops are correlated with bad QBs. Let's not use that excuse again. OR drops are correlated with no running game - which would make sense that those with a running game had easier catches Run game = easier throws = easier catches = fewer drops = higher completion percentage = higher passer rating = more wins It all works and supports the FO's current direction Edited May 21, 2013 by Pragidealist Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragidealist Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Does anyone here really believe Wilson cane out better than P Manning and Luck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Bullshit The other young qbs were carried by their rb. CJ was shit early. The stats back that up. Unless anyone thinks rg3 and Wilson are just more accurate than luck. The big concern coming out of college for Locker was his accuracy. He completed 53.9% of his passes in college. His rookie season he completed 51.5%, in 2012 he completed 56.4% What the stats back-up is Jake Locker has not been an accurate passer in college or the pros. LOL@ comparing RG and Wilson to Luck as some kind of proof concerning Jake Locker. I don't know how to use stats? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragidealist Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 The big concern coming out of college for Locker was his accuracy. He completed 53.9% of his passes in college. His rookie season he completed 51.5%, in 2012 he completed 56.4% What the stats back-up is Jake Locker has not been an accurate passer in college or the pros. LOL@ comparing RG and Wilson to Luck as some kind of proof concerning Jake Locker. I don't know how to use stats? No you don't I wasn't even talking about Locker. I was talking about the effect of the run game on young qbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Praq, Riddle me this.... Two of Locker's best games last season were the Pats game and Detroit game. Locker had a lot of completions and solid yds and TDs in those two games. He almost went for 400yds in the Lions game and had a 113 passer rating. CJ had 11 carries for 4yds vs. NE and against the Lions CJ had 14 carries for 24yds Later in the season against the Fins the Titans had 177yds on 37 carries. Locker had 9 completions for 122yds and a measly 5.8yds per pass. Same thing for the Jets game....13 completions and 149yds..... Why wasn't Locker making all these easy passes for yards and a high % when the running game worked best? Why were his best games when the running game did nothing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.