QB Controvery

Sounds good to me.

 

this argument has gone all to hell. it started with you saying that B's lack of mobility didn't hinder the offense and my smarting-off that you must be joking. me thinks we're basically in agreement. B was a good QB (in yours and many others opinions -- I'm not going to get caught up in this argument) despite his lack of moblity. if had been mobile he would have been a better QB. an offense can be very effective with an immobile QB as 1999 proved and as did other QBs. but those offenses would have all been more effective if the same immobile QBs had been very mobile ... and they didn't have happy feet. to me, that means that their lack of mobility hindered the offense. to you it does not. in B's case his complete lack of mobility and inability to buy time was so bad that it was IMO a hinderance to the offense. but like i said earlier, B is gone so I really don't give a crap what me thinks vs you thinks when it comes to B.

in all of this, I have not argued that Weinke is immobile or that I like Fasani more because he his a much better scrambler. to me, the scrambling is a non-issue. Weinke moves about surprising well. I'd like Fasani better if he scrambled less.

your issues with Fasani are that you think he has 1) happy feet, 2) no balls, 3) and you'd rather have a QB that will stay in the pocket. my response to those issues has been: 1) he is a rookie with good feet and a lot of heart and it's not uncommon for such rookies to need to learn to settle down ... which I think he did do to a large degree last week and will continue to do as he gains experience and the game slows down for him, 2) you must be joking (there i go again) that he has no balls ... the guy is as gutsy as any QB as I can remember. he often puts his head down and goes for the first down stick at the end of the run rather than looking for OB 2-3 yards short as Weinke is prone to do. Which is way folks are saying that he is Farve like. You can see the fight and desire oozing out of this guy ... and it carries over to his teammates. And though you're not easily impressed with how hard he plays, you should be impressed with his results. 3) you make it sound as if he can't throw well and hasn't stayed in the pocket. i think the last game proves you wrong. but you seem to only remember the times he takes off running. Steve Young had a tendency to bail to his left ... its easier to throw on the run with your body than against it. I don't think this is a fatal flaw. again, as he gains experience, I think you will get your wish and see him stay in the pocket longer.

I think i can agree with Snail that even good scramblers do less (downfield) running after they have developed. But that is mostly because the coaches have finally convinced them that they are too valuable to be putting their bodies on the line. Also, while they may be running downfield as much and putting their heads down and going for extra yardage at the end of runs, they do still very effectively buy time in the backfield with their feet avoiding the rush.

>>I just don't see as being something that we are gonna see with Smith very often.

> he's a deep threat. Why do you see that as a rarity when that's one of the few things he can do without fucking up?

on that particular TD, as you said, he was lucky. the DB misplayed his defense. he's got questionable hands and is short so I don't see him being able to outfight many defenders for balls. so unless he gets really good separation i don't see him hauling in many of these balls. so far, I have not seen him getting the separation. plus, if he does catch a couple, i would suspect the CBs will start getting safety help since we don't have any other deep threats other than Bright . . . however I don't see it coming to that. hope i'm stupidly wrong on this issue. i think his strength is going to be on slants where he can use his quickness.

>>got flushed and then dumped the ball to Smith who had no chance to pick up a first down.

the ball was thrown to L. Smith. sorry for my lack of clarity. wasn't a receiver screen. L. Smith was an outlet that didn't have a chance of picking up 1st down and that he took to easily IMO after he got flushed from the pocket. again, it looked to me that he had time to look upfield and try to find a receiver. IMO, he showed no balls and bailed out too quickly.

>> The simple fact is that the franchise is feeding us shit and buzzwords to get people happy about another losing season. I don't need that and the promise of a happy footed third stringer to get me excited or to buy tickets and follow a team.

I don't know what the franchise is trying feed us. Fox had warned that he wasn't going to be able to turn around this franchse overnite. You and most others have agreed with that, saying that you would feel good if we win 4-6 games this year. Before preseason started, the general sentiment was that Weinke needed to take a big step forward this year. I, along with most other fans (except for the "wise one"), felt Weinke would do this. But he did not do it in preseason. And he has shocked me by looking even worse than last year. Meanwhile, I don't think hardly anyone expected Fasani to look so good. As I think Fox said, he has been the most pleasant surprise of the camp. I'm sorry you are not excited about him. I'm with Sandy on this one now. I wanna see him with the big boys. The sooner the better.

You're crying that you want to see us stick with a QB for awhile. I'm just hoping that Fox is a good one and that we can stick with him for awhile. So far, he hasn't done anything to make me feel he is a dumbshit or a passionless robot. Every move he has made has seemed solid IMO, including the move of benching Weinke. Hopfully the "stupid" fans will stay behind him.

 

Overall, yes, we agree. But I jsut can't agree that lack of mobility hindered the offense. It wasn't the difference. Had he been more mobile in 2000 (actually he did move around better in 1999 than in 2000) it could have helped a little, but very little. That's where I'm coming from.

Yes, Fasani has heart. He does take a hit. But he just leaves far too early. He did improve a little, but he still leaves when he sees people come free. I'd love to see him do more in the pocket, and he's working on it. God knows he had to. No balls is an exaggerating circumstance, yes. I'm not saying he's not tough.

and it's not that I'm not excited. It's that he's not ready. He probably shouldn't see the field except in extreme conditions. I can't get excited about a guy I don't think should see the field. he's not this year.

>>do less (downfield) running after they have developed. But that is mostly because the coaches have finally convinced them that they are too valuable to be putting their bodies on the line.

No, not completely. I don't believe that's the main factor either.
Coaches spend a week putting together a game plan. They call plays with purpose. They want to set things up, manipulate a defense. It's a lot harder to do if the quarterback is running around.
Scrambling can take its toll on the body, but measures can be taken and the league does protect the QB. I can't say I don't worry about it, but to me the execution of the coaches' wishes are paramount, hence my feeling that the pocket is also a very critical situation.

Lamar Smith. I remember the play. Lamar dropped it - he had room to run. Yes, he dumped. Maybe he should have looked downfield. That, as well, is curable. I don't believe it's lack of balls, but there was confusion.

>>general sentiment was that Weinke needed to take a big step forward this year.

The problem is that the year's just started. I can't say that the move wasn't somewhat justified but if it was coming it should have happened sooner.

>>>you're crying that...

I'm not crying of anything. And I'm not alone in the want to actually develop a QB. We've only done that once.

 

>>he often puts his head down and goes for the first down stick at the end of the run

This is true. But it's also a problem for him. He did this at Stanford, and that's why he was always getting pulled or taken out. Could not stay healthy, because he ran so much and rarely slid.

Anyway, there was a discussion a while back, and had about 5 skills for QBs. In order of importance, accuracy, vision/reads, poise, arm, and mobility.

Bottom line, none of our guys have all 5, or even 3. Weinke has showed some poise and has a better than average arm, but he's not had the consistent accuracy and hasn't made good decisions on his reads consistantly, and those are 1 and 2. Have to have those, and none of the guys on the team, at this point, do. Fasani has mobility and arm, but he's wildly erratic on the other 3.

 

Ok, I've got it... since many people on and off this board are not even sure if we have the so called "Franchise QB"... Lets start with Peete this weekend as planned.

The rules are simple.

1. Peete plays until we lose a game
2. The QB may be yanked during the game if we are down by more than 21 points. If say Winky comes in for Peete after we go down by 21 points and we lose, he is not penalized that game, he gets to start the next.

 

You know, as I was listening to the games while Fasani was in, that's the impression I got--like he was running for his life. Of course, he was behind a backup O-line (as he was constantly in practice), so maybe that's what he's used to. He still needs to learn some 'pocket patience' though.

 

>> Lamar Smith. I remember the play. Lamar dropped it - he had room to run. Yes, he dumped. Maybe he should have looked downfield. That, as well, is curable. I don't believe it's lack of balls, but there was confusion.

No that's not the play. Smith caught the ball and was able to gain about 5 yards. Well short of the 1st down. But is it curable in Weinke? I think that's the worry and what I'm looking for from him. A big step forward in making winning decisions. That's what i have not seen to my surprise. And Fasani is showing it, whatever it is.

>>general sentiment was that Weinke needed to take a big step forward this year.

>The problem is that the year's just started. I can't say that the move wasn't somewhat justified but if it was coming it should have happened sooner.

In a perfect world, I'm sure that would have happened. I don't think Fox really knew what he had in Weinke and whether he could step up or not. They probably saw enough poise and good in film to think he could but it, for whatever reason, has not happened. Maybe they think he just needs more time. Right now I'm so confused by the events that I'm not going to venture any further guess. I was sure that it was a move toward Fasani, but apparently I was dead wrong.

>>And I'm not alone in the want to actually develop a QB.

We're in agreement again. Amazing how we think so much alike. But I'm not for continuing to try to ride a dead horse. If the coaches think they can't win at present with Weinke then I think they should be allowed to make a change. If they think Weinke's not ready similar to your thinking that Fasani is not ready then they should be able to put him on the bench with Fasani. Maybe the benching would be best for his development. I just dunno. But the coaches should go with their best option to win until the season is for all intents and purposes lost. And that is apparently what they are doing.

 

In that game, Craig might have to be picked up around week 15 or so.

 

Nah, the way I see it, by the end of the season, all 3 QB will either have started 4-6 games each or eventually we'll find the starter...

 

>>No that's not the play.

Don't remember it then.

>>If the coaches think they can't win at present with Weinke then I think they should be allowed to make a change.

True, I guess. Just that when you're making a move about a quarterback for the first time ever, sometimes it'll raise some eyebrows. I don't hate the change, just that it was made at the point it was.

>>In that game, Craig might have to be picked up around week 15 or so.

No, you see, you don't get it. Point is that we have to waste the year giving every quarterback who ever wore electric blue a chance whether they've earned it or not.