QB Controvery

I'm checking my logic as we speak....I'm lost.

Here are a couple of guesses?

1) They have decided Weinke is not the Qb for the future, so why pay him the incentives and waste a year.

2) They are trying to light a fire under Weinke's ass.

3) Weinke's injury is more serious than reported.

4) Fox thinks Weinke SUCKS.

 

trade? hmmm. that's an interesting thought.

gotto hand it to Fox. takes elephant balls to name Peete as your starter. if Peete and Repeat were our only 2 QB's and Peete left who would be our QB?

[answer]

if Peete and Repeat were our only 2 QB's and Peete left who would be our QB?

 

Oh, come on Head Case! Don't answer a question with a question. Your really fucking with me here, and it's not very nice to pick on a drunk confused guy!!!

 

How do you keep an idiot in suspense??

 

Ok, I'm with you...how?

 

Fox, to me, is working this thing in the only way a reasonable coach can. Going on the idea that only an idiot keeps doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result, Fox has come to the conclusion that a change is necessary.That leaves just two choices. He probably would like to start Fasani but the better choice is to let the vet take the pressure of the start at first then work F in if the opportunity comes up. I expect to see Fasani take over later in the season. Smart move not to put this on Fasani right away. If nothing pans out by midseason there are other options.

 

>> Beuerlein's lack of mobility didn't hinder us.

>that's a joke right?

No, it's not a joke. And then I listed why, and then you decided to ignore that part. I'll wait until you address that before I waste time on a reply like this.

I don't remember him running much in 99, and the offense ran well. Running around scared wouldn't have made 2000 better.

PR
>>Cube, right now it appears Weinke is the 3rd string...probably the savior.

Nope. That's just hopeful thinking from the Fasani people. Weinke is the backup.

 

I really have no use in rehashing B-line. In my mind, he's gone an therefore a dead issue. I was in a shock last nite and that's why smarted-off. Sorry.

You listed why? Sorry but I don't see your reasons why you think his mobility didn't hinder us. I'll agree that he wasn't the same player in 2000. Your next sentence (and i use the term loosely) I still can't make heads or tails of. And I'll agree with your next statement that coaching changes in 2000 and the loss of Jeffers hindered the offense. But those statements don't address whether B's lack of mobility hendered the offense. I suppose that you are asking me to jump from the fact that B had a good year in 1999 to a poor year in 2000 and that since his moblity had not changed then logically I must conclude that other factors and not his mobility are what hendered the offense. And I can agree with your logic there as to the difference between 1999 and 2000, but it doesn't address your initial statement and whether the question of does a QB's complete lack of mobility hinder an offense. I think there are many obvious reasons that having a mobile QB is a good thing, along with plenty examples. I think it obvious that any offense is going to be limited (hendered) if the QB can't move. I won't say that B's lack of mobility was his biggest negative as a QB but I'm not going to get into that discussion now. He's gone, thankfully, so I couldn't give a crap what anyone thinks of him now . . . and I try not to.

What you had to say in your post I can agree with on most points. But it is all based on a presumption that anyone that likes Fasani is in love with him because of his scrambling ability. I don't want to speak for others, but I think that is a wrong assumption on your part. His ability to scramble and run helps him just as Weinke's does. No, it's not so much that ability as it is his competiveness and the way he gets his offense fired up. It's the way he gets results in the way of TD's. You mentioned Weinke going 14-17 and a TD in the first half against Dallas. But honestly, wasn't that pretty poor results for the way our defense was manhandling Dallas? Weinke just does not impress me as a winner . . . and Fasani does. Simple as that. Weinke still makes awful decisions and throws that maybe I'd accept from a rookie. I lived with that last year but it's going to be tuff as hell to continue watching Weinke doing it and losing games, especially when I think Fasani would somehow win (despite all his failings). I know that you kinda pooh-pooh the whole thought that enthusiasm and excitement are important elements to the game but, afterall, they were some of Fox's first utterances when he came to town and the reason JR gave for firing Seifert. I'd guess that Weinke doesn't get anyone enthused or excited, including his teammates. I'd guess even his wife has to fake it. Fasani brings enthusiasm and excitement and I'm all for that and a few wins.

 

>>Sorry but I don't see your reasons why you think his mobility didn't hinder us.

I gave reasons as to why he had a lesser year. Mobility didn't enter into it - holding the ball was why he got sacked as much as he did, not the fact he doesn't run around like his life depends on it. That's not the player he was, or is, and shouldn't have to run for his life. An intelligent player would realize that a bad line plus a pocket passer in a WCO means release the ball on a three step drop.

In other words, scrambling is not a factor and while you're looking for an answer to the mobility question you don't seem to understand that the mobility or lack thereof didn't cause 62 sacks. If it did, Vick wouldn't have gotten sacked more per attempt than Chandler.

>>but it doesn't address your initial statement and whether the question of does a QB's complete lack of mobility hinder an offense.

Yes it does. Did the 1999 offense get hindered by his lack of mobility? It did its damndest and ran at a level higher than most despite early struggles. If an offense runs great without mobility, and then it struggles, again missing mobility, how is his mobility suddenly a factor? Simply saying "62 sacks" and then "he can't run"? You're not that simple.

Sure. Having a Beuerlein who could also run? I'd have taken it. Players are who they are, not who they should be. No one has every skill - that was a lacking case for Beuerlein. I can't argue against how he did in 1999.


>.But honestly, wasn't that pretty poor results for the way our defense was manhandling Dallas?

No, not really. This isn't regular season - we did have good field position. That's going to lessen yardage totals. Otherwise? Not a factor. Weinke didn't call back to back receiver screens.

That 11-14 is poor because the defense was dominant? 11-14 is very good. That's the best percentage total of any QB this year, and I seriously doubt you'll find anything between now and 1999 that boasts as high. So you certainly couldn't have had any beef there.

That one touchdown is weak because the defense was dominant? That's totally irrelevant. The offense doesn't say "oh, well we should score now. The defense is playing well." That the opposing defense lays down because their offense isn't playing as well?

>>No, it's not so much that ability as it is his competiveness and the way he gets his offense fired up.

I don't find the burning of extra calories to be more competitive. Sure, it looks good, and it makes fans get excited, but if it means we're running a bootleg to the right every pass play, and we're running with a QB who can't and won't commit to the pocket, we're not going to be successful. No quarterback has ever been successful as a scrambler without at least pretending as if he has the balls to stand in and get the ball off to a receiver.

>>I know that you kinda pooh-pooh the whole thought that enthusiasm and excitement are important

They sell tickets and make fans less bitter. Too bad they don't make fans less stupid - I'm sorry but giving us the words "excitement", "shotgun", and "headset" and showing us a picture of John Fox yelling and pointing ain't gonna get it.

Sure, running game, better play calling, commitment to the defensive line and team speed, I can get down with that. If they want to go in a new direction and make things happen in different ways that's fine. But I'm not going to sit there and say all's right with the world because we have a coach that can yell and a quarterback who can run around instead of throwing the ball in a controlled environment.

>> I'd guess even (Weine's) wife has to fake it. Fasani brings enthusiasm and excitement and I'm all for that and a few wins.

Hooray for emotional investment! Glad to see you can put up lucid and factual information instead of rah-rah words and putdowns to players you don't like. Really...I'm not trying to get into pissy little shouting matches with you. I just don't understand why you have to make comments like that, they really have no bearing on anything and only show you as having extreme bias.

 

>> holding the ball was why he got sacked as much as he did, not the fact he doesn't run around like his life depends on it. That's not the player he was, or is, and shouldn't have to run for his life.[/B]

again, it annoys me that you insist on implying in your arguments that all QB's scramble/run like their life depends on it. this is simply not the case. for many offenses, the QB ability to run is a weapon. in B's case, he couldn't run around if his life depended on it.

he shouldn't have to run (for his life)? that is sooo weak. running backs shouldn't get tackled behind the line scrimmage before they can get their feet moving but sometimes they do. sometimes shit happens. sometimes defenses guess right and/or an OL gets beat. when it does, it's an advantage if the QB has the mobility to escape. it's a disadvantage if the QB is immobile.

well, let's state the obvious. holding the ball is the reason most QBs get sacked. however, if a QB has good mobility he can often avoid sacks that an immobile QB would not. even in the WCO there are times when a QB will run outa time because his first options aren't open or the blitz comes so fast. in the case of Young and Montana, they were often able to avoid being sacked for large losses due to the mobility. their mobility helped their offenses not only by escaping sacks but also by called runs. particurlarly in Young's case, defenses always had to account for the fact that his running was an option for the 49ers. B's lack of moblity hurt our offense. an immobile QB's only options when he is running outa time is to force a pass (often for an interception) or take sack, which of course B did both often.

An intelligent player would realize that a bad line plus a pocket passer in a WCO means release the ball on a three step drop.

intelligent player? ya need to help me with what you are trying to argue. are ya saying that B was not intelligent enough to know that he needed to get rid of the ball quickly?

you don't seem to understand that the mobility or lack thereof didn't cause 62 sacks. If it did, Vick wouldn't have gotten sacked more per attempt than Chandler.

that's flawed logic and you know it. i don't watch the Falcons so can't respond as to why Vick took more sacks than Chandler. i would guess it would have a lot to do with Chandler being a savvy vet that could quickly recognize defenses and get rid of the ball quickly; whereas, Vick was a rookie and also he like to use his feet. don't have the stats but based on your statement I would assume that Vick had one of the higher sack ratios in the NFL. if Atlanta had traded back for Brett Farve and he had followed Chandler, my guess is that Brett would have taken less sacks and added to the offense due to his mobility. just because the lack of mobility is not the only reason a QB takes a sack, it doesn't mean that it is a non-factor. you're smart enough to know that.

B's inability to escape the pass rush had an awful lot to do with him takin 62 sacks. IMO our OL took more heat for those sacks than they should of. defenses were able to tee off on B and not worry about having to contain him. mobile QB's would have salvaged some of those sacks by occassionally escaping enough to get outside the pocket and throwing the ball away, find a receiver or scrambling for positive yardage. our OL was basically blocking for a sitting duck. if he couldn't find an open receiver very quickly he was dead meat. he was never able to buy his recevers or OL any extra time. just because some QB's tend to bail too quickly or rely on their feet too much, doesn't mean that there are not QB's that use their mobility to bring an added positive dimension to the offense.

>> Sure. Having a Beuerlein who could also run? I'd have taken it. Players are who they are, not who they should be. No one has every skill - that was a lacking case for Beuerlein.

Why would you have taken it. My guess it that because you know that it would have helped our offense. Therefore I can conclude that you and I are in agreement. His lack of mobility hendered the offense.

>> That 11-14 is poor because the defense was dominant? 11-14 is very good. That's the best percentage total of any QB this year, and I seriously doubt you'll find anything between now and 1999 that boasts as high. So you certainly couldn't have had any beef there. That one touchdown is weak because the defense was dominant? That's totally irrelevant. The offense doesn't say "oh, well we should score now. The defense is playing well." That the opposing defense lays down because their offense isn't playing as well?

11-14 is good by any measure unless it's just a bunch of short little dump passes and you're not moving the chains and scoring points. How is it irrelevant that your defense is totally dominating and is constanty forcing the other team to go 3 and out and giving the ball to your offense in good field position? Your offense's ultimate is to put points on the board. If the other team's defense is not getting to rest and your offense is constantly starting with good field position, you'd hope that they could take advantage. I didn't feel horrible about the offense that night but I was worried. I felt the offense should have put more points on the board in the 1st half. The lone TD came on a long throw that I felt we were lucky on and I just don't see as being something that we are gonna see with Smith very often. Other than that pass I don't think Weike completed anything downfield. On a third and 10 (or so), Weinke dropped back, got flushed and then dumped the ball to Smith who had no chance to pick up a first down. I thought on that play that Weinke made a very poor choice dumping to Smith as I thought he had bought himself enough time to at least take a look downfield. But he never did. He bailed out to Smith without even trying to make a play. That's my concern with him (and the seemly fact that he can't throw to his left). I don't see him with the fire in his game to win at this point. This is mostly gut ... but apparently Fox has concluded something similar as he mentioned lack of "spark" as the reason for Weinke's demotion.

>> I don't find the burning of extra calories to be more competitive. Sure, it looks good, and it makes fans get excited, but if it means we're running a bootleg to the right every pass play, and we're running with a QB who can't and won't commit to the pocket, we're not going to be successful. No quarterback has ever been successful as a scrambler without at least pretending as if he has the balls to stand in and get the ball off to a receiver.

Do you find scoring extra TDs to be more competitive? Latter in your post you accuse me of extreme bias. I think you show a similar attitude toward Fasani. You give every excuse in the world for Weinke and are willing to stick through losing game after game with him and yet you do nothing but bash Fasani because he's a scrambler. So what? He's a rookie and rookies with quick feet and a lot of heart tend to bail too early and scramble too much. Why can't you open your eyes and give the kid a break? Extreme bias?

Did you even watch the last game? Fasani stayed in the pocket much better. At one point, he escaped a defender that was drapped all over him while he was in the pocket. I suppose you would have liked for him to force a pass or take a sack there. He's got plenty of balls and has shown more to me than Weinke on his best day. The thing I and most fans care about is winning. Fasani looks to me like he's a winner, Weinke does not. Fasani has put TD's on the board this peseason and Weinke has not, except for one lone somewhat lucky play ... and i think i might be quoting you when i say lucky play.