Green’s crazy quarterback experiment fails

[conraddobler]

Been doing that since the beginning of the year if you hadn't noticed. Sure I let my emotions get the best of me (who here hasn't), I've been fair in my evaluations.

I've said for a while now that a QB change would make little to no difference with the mess that we had as an offense. However, I kept being told that even losses where our defense got destroyed it was always Josh's fault and a QB change would make all the difference in the world.

Our offense (as it currently stands) is a mess. I truly feel it doesn't matter who the QB was, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

I hope to hell I'm wrong but I fear that I'm not

Now that deserves a toast.....

clink..

 

[This_Guy]

Been doing that since the beginning of the year if you hadn't noticed. Sure I let my emotions get the best of me (who here hasn't), I've been fair in my evaluations.

I've said for a while now that a QB change would make little to no difference with the mess that we had as an offense. However, I kept being told that even losses where our defense got destroyed it was always Josh's fault and a QB change would make all the difference in the world.

Our offense (as it currently stands) is a mess. I truly feel it doesn't matter who the QB was, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

I hope to hell I'm wrong but I fear that I'm not

SAT WHAT?

BTW, if this game proved anything, it proved that McCown was absolutely the problem with the offense. King missed throws, turned the ball over 4 times, gave away a number of downs to ball handling and being on the wrong page with receivers and lost a lot of yards to penalties and STILL put up 343 yards.

While it does say that King might not be the guy, it also suggests that McCown was holding the offense back. King threw for more yards in a mediocre 2nd half than McCown has in any game this year.

The other point here is that if King gets rid of the turnovers and gets on the same page as his receivers (quickly correctlable issues), you can see that the offense will move. That combined with the defense showing up will be a tough team to beat down the stretch.

 

[green machine]

SAT WHAT?

BTW, if this game proved anything, it proved that McCown was absolutely the problem with the offense. King missed throws, turned the ball over 4 times, gave away a number of downs to ball handling and being on the wrong page with receivers and lost a lot of yards to penalties and STILL put up 343 yards.

OK, I'm not one to insult people, but this right here has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read.

Do you think that maybe King threw for 343 yards because we were very far behind very early on? King helped put us very far behind too.

Wow, the guy threw for 343 yards! He was great! Nevermind the fact that the team lost by 25 and the QB had 4 turnovers! Didn't Jake throw for almost 500 yards in a loss to the Falcons? Was that a good game for Jake?

Garbage time stats mean absolutely nothing!

 

[This_Guy]

OK, I'm not one to insult people, but this right here has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read.

Do you think that maybe King threw for 343 yards because we were very far behind very early on? King helped put us very far behind too.

Wow, the guy threw for 343 yards! He was great! Nevermind the fact that the team lost by 25 and the QB had 4 turnovers! Didn't Jake throw for almost 500 yards in a loss to the Falcons? Was that a good game for Jake?

Garbage time stats mean absolutely nothing!

Let me help you understand.

No where did I say King played well. Evil Ash said that this game proved that McCown wasn't the problem with the offense, nothing about winning or losing. Against the Giants, the defense and ST played well enough that the team won despite only 178 yards of offense and all of those yards were a painful struggle. McCown aplogists noted that "no QB" could be expected to succeed behind this OL, these RBs, slow WRs, etc.

As I noted, KING PLAYED POORLY, and the Cards still had 399 yards of offense. And as I also noted, there were many many plays (opportunities for more yards) given away on turnovers and miscommunication, not to mention a 44 yard pass called back. So if King had played well, you can quickly see how the offensive numbers could have been much higher.

Sorry, but don't tell me that McCown would have put up 343 yards yesterday against a good defense that has been blitzing relentlessly for weeks.

Again, the conclusion is that King played poorly, yet the offense was more than TWICE as productive as last week. I'm sure DG wants to see what happens if/when King plays well and the defense shows up.

 

[green machine]

Let me help you understand.

No where did I say King played well. Evil Ash said that this game proved that McCown wasn't the problem with the offense, nothing about winning or losing. Against the Giants, the defense and ST played well enough that the team won despite only 178 yards of offense and all of those yards were a painful struggle. McCown aplogists noted that "no QB" could be expected to succeed behind this OL, these RBs, slow WRs, etc.

As I noted, KING PLAYED POORLY, and the Cards still had 399 yards of offense. And as I also noted, there were many many plays (opportunities for more yards) given away on turnovers and miscommunication, not to mention a 44 yard pass called back. So if King had played well, you can quickly see how the offensive numbers could have been much higher.

Sorry, but don't tell me that McCown would have put up 343 yards yesterday against a good defense that has been blitzing relentlessly for weeks.

Again, the conclusion is that King played poorly, yet the offense was more than TWICE as productive as last week. I'm sure DG wants to see what happens if/when King plays well and the defense shows up.

I would argue the passing game was more productive, but not necessarily the offense.

The running game was terrible.

The passing game only had the yardage because of the sheer amount of passes thrown. King's 6.6 ypa average was not great. A bit higher than McCown's average for the year, but not a great average.

One could also argue that part of the reason McCown hasn't thrown for that many yards is because we have not had to abandon our running game so early in most games this season.

 

[Evil Ash]

Let me help you understand.

No where did I say King played well. Evil Ash said that this game proved that McCown wasn't the problem with the offense, nothing about winning or losing. Against the Giants, the defense and ST played well enough that the team won despite only 178 yards of offense and all of those yards were a painful struggle. McCown aplogists noted that "no QB" could be expected to succeed behind this OL, these RBs, slow WRs, etc.

As I noted, KING PLAYED POORLY, and the Cards still had 399 yards of offense. And as I also noted, there were many many plays (opportunities for more yards) given away on turnovers and miscommunication, not to mention a 44 yard pass called back. So if King had played well, you can quickly see how the offensive numbers could have been much higher.

Sorry, but don't tell me that McCown would have put up 343 yards yesterday against a good defense that has been blitzing relentlessly for weeks.

Again, the conclusion is that King played poorly, yet the offense was more than TWICE as productive as last week. I'm sure DG wants to see what happens if/when King plays well and the defense shows up.

So let me get this straight ... our offense was more productive because we managed to score less points than a game where our QB threw for 90 yards? The fact that King threw for a whole bunch of yards in garbage time excuses him from this?

You prefer fantasy football over the real thing don't you? Points and wins are what I consider as factors of success, the yardage stat means absolutely nothing if you don't score any points

Good Lord you are Shaun King

 

[Russ Smith]

SAT WHAT?

BTW, if this game proved anything, it proved that McCown was absolutely the problem with the offense. King missed throws, turned the ball over 4 times, gave away a number of downs to ball handling and being on the wrong page with receivers and lost a lot of yards to penalties and STILL put up 343 yards.

While it does say that King might not be the guy, it also suggests that McCown was holding the offense back. King threw for more yards in a mediocre 2nd half than McCown has in any game this year.

The other point here is that if King gets rid of the turnovers and gets on the same page as his receivers (quickly correctlable issues), you can see that the offense will move. That combined with the defense showing up will be a tough team to beat down the stretch.

There's no question he moved the team but over 200 of those yards came AFTER we fell behind 28-0. Even you have to admit defenses play differently with a 28 point lead.

I think King will get a lot better obviously even Green said he had "no work" 2-3 weeks ago and less than half the reps before the game. Green completely botched the transition, he didn't give Green adequate time to prepare.

Contrast that with Parcells who's still leaning to NOT starting Henson on Thursday because "he'd only get 2 days of practice as the starter and I don't think that's fair to anybody, especially a rookie." King is no rookie but he had zero days of practice as the starter.

Green botched it, but you gotta admit as a first shot King botched it too by being careless with the ball. he'll get better, we all expect that I think, but I think you can't really fixate on the yardage that's a byproduct of being so far behind.

 

[Chaz]

I don't agree with that at all. The single biggest factor in losing this game was Nick Goings, a 6th string RB, looking like a hall of famer. The D lost this game in the first half, not King.

I guess the INT that was returned to the one yard line didn't have much to do with that third TD.

The turnovers killed us. The defense was bad early but putting more pressure on them by committing turnovers is a huge factor.

 

[Mulli]

Here's the footballoutsiders.com rating on King.

31. Shaun King
28/52, 343 yards
1 TD, 3 INTs Steals the "garbage time stat padding performance of the year" award away from Jake Plummer. 343 yards of nonsense. -9.2

Only worse rating was Craig Krenzel of the bears.

Yee-ouch. That one definitely stings.

 

[Duckjake]

I guess the INT that was returned to the one yard line didn't have much to do with that third TD.

The turnovers killed us. The defense was bad early but putting more pressure on them by committing turnovers is a huge factor.

These are the exact same posts I read when McGinnis and Tobins defenses were finishing in the bottom of the league every year.

I always love this kind:

Final score 38-35 winning team has 490 yds total offense- losing QB throws for 4 TD's but throws his only INT with :23 left in the game from his own 40.

@#@(*&$ QB is awful his turnovers killed us again. Our defense gave them a chance to win at the end and he blew it

I also like the ones were the QB turns the ball over on the opponents 5yd line and the other team's offense goes 95 yds in less than two minutes yet the D had nothing to do with the score it was the turnover. Not much you can do when the get on your 1 though.

Always enjoyed the way the Ravens used to play D. Other team gets a turnover at the Raven 20. Other team punts from Raven 45. Kind of like our offense this season.

 

[This_Guy]

There's no question he moved the team but over 200 of those yards came AFTER we fell behind 28-0. Even you have to admit defenses play differently with a 28 point lead.

I think King will get a lot better obviously even Green said he had "no work" 2-3 weeks ago and less than half the reps before the game. Green completely botched the transition, he didn't give Green adequate time to prepare.

Contrast that with Parcells who's still leaning to NOT starting Henson on Thursday because "he'd only get 2 days of practice as the starter and I don't think that's fair to anybody, especially a rookie." King is no rookie but he had zero days of practice as the starter.

Green botched it, but you gotta admit as a first shot King botched it too by being careless with the ball. he'll get better, we all expect that I think, but I think you can't really fixate on the yardage that's a byproduct of being so far behind.

I know that most of the yards came after halftime, but if you add the 44 yard TD that was called back, King would have had 160 yards in the first half, still an entire game's worth for McCown.

And again, most of the yards he picked up were against a heavy blitz, so don't make it sound like the Panthers were in a prevent for 2/3 of the game. When you are down 21-0 that quickly, everything is garbage time.

 

[CaptTurbo]

These are the exact same posts I read when McGinnis and Tobins defenses were finishing in the bottom of the league every year.

I always love this kind:

Final score 38-35 winning team has 490 yds total offense- losing QB throws for 4 TD's but throws his only INT with :23 left in the game from his own 40.

@#@(*&$ QB is awful his turnovers killed us again. Our defense gave them a chance to win at the end and he blew it

I also like the ones were the QB turns the ball over on the opponents 5yd line and the other team's offense goes 95 yds in less than two minutes yet the D had nothing to do with the score it was the turnover. Not much you can do when the get on your 1 though.

Always enjoyed the way the Ravens used to play D. Other team gets a turnover at the Raven 20. Other team punts from Raven 45. Kind of like our offense this season.

Duck no amount of this logic will get through to the pro mccown or anti king/green crowd.

 

[Rats]

Great article by Bordow. Hit the nail on the head with this one.

I agree completly. DG will turn this team around and get them used to winning but at this stage of the season a change for change sake was a mistake. Coaches make them. They don't admit them to the public but they make them. I will wait and see if the OLINE can play any better this week before judging King. He is not a long term solution but he is servicable behind a good line which we dont have. Taking care of the ball and not turning it over is the single thing that had us in 8 of the first 9 games. You can attribute that to Josh just not throwing the ball all over the place and getting picks. He could easily have the yards King had but he would also have the TO that cost you games. King contributed heavily to the loss but penalties really cost us a chance in this game. I just got back from Mexico and rewatched the game and it sucked as bad the second time as the first. Easily the worst game of the year on both sides of the ball by our team. We need to start a Freddie must go campaign. He sucks bad.

 

[conraddobler]

Duck no amount of this logic will get through to the pro mccown or anti king/green crowd.

Why don't you just edit that to include both sides of the arguement cause you guys don't exactly welcome opposing logic with open arms now do you?

This is almost comical the way people line up on both sides and then dig in.

You'd think it was a presidential race or something.

Josh was winning and had won 3 out of his 4 last starts with one loss comming in gale force winds up at Buffalo.

Our side was just saying there were better places throughout the season to bench the guy and that DG just is acting weird lately.

After Atlanta would have been a better place, he could have just started King and said we are going to let Josh think about what he has done and then we all will see King play and let them sort it out.

Now that wouldn't have been enough time for my opinion to totally evalute Josh and I would have thought it was giving up on him too early but it would have made more sense.

Green had a panic attack something he claims he dosen't do and he got what's comming to people who panic. Failure.

I don't believe this whole thing has much conspiracy to it. I believe DG thought he could mold Josh and Josh wasn't comming along fast enough, DG knew this much earlier than now but held onto him for ego reasons then panic set in.

He probably caved due to lobbying efforts of players and maybe even coaches or just his own insecurity and started King with minimal prep.

What he should have done is at the first sign Josh wasn't heeding his teachings was say look let the ball fly son and let it fly now or you're not going to be the QB. Yes you have to be able to throw the ball and not turn it over too much but you can't just eat it and never throw with the WR we have.

The Carolina game would have been the correct game to say ok, we are going shotgun we are going downfield and you are going to prove you belong in this league this game or you are going to sit and watch King.

I think they tried this in the Giants game but the wind was way too horrible for that.

This game was the game to do it in.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Taking care of the ball and not turning it over is the single thing that had us in 8 of the first 9 games. You can attribute that to Josh just not throwing the ball all over the place and getting picks. Easily the worst game of the year on both sides of the ball by our team. We need to start a Freddie must go campaign. He sucks bad.

One - I agree with the Freddie Jones thing - but two - I really think you are off base on everything else up there. You say above that THE SINGLE THING that had us in ball games was "taking care of the ball and not turning it over" and then you say that can be attributed to Josh not throwing the ball all over the place and getting picks. Do you realize by saying that that you ARE saying the Josh is THE SINGLE THING that had us in ballgames?

No - the single thing that had us in ball games was the Defense getting pressure on the QB (we didn't do that ocne in the Carolina game) and getting multiple turnovers (we got one in the Carolina game) and getting STOPS when we did have turnovers. The DEFENSE and it's ability to make up for the offenses lack of movement/mistakes WAS THE SINGLE thing that kept us in ball games Rats.

We had four turnovers in the Atlanta game - The Defense kept us in that. We scored 10 points against the Rams - the D kept us in that. We had 2 turnovers in the NE game - the Defense kept us in that one. We had a interception for a TD against the Seahawks to give them the lead in the fourth and THE DEFENSE KEPT US IN THAT ONE. We had a defensive TD against the Fins when we were down 14-3 in the third - the D kept us in that one.

The DEFENSE - the defense that for the most part didn't see a heaping dose of KVB, Calvin Pace, Hill and Levar Woods is the SINGLE BIGGEST reason we were in games because if the offense did make a mistake - the D normally could hold the floodgates - it wasn't giving up 30 yard TDs on the last play of the half or getting dominated by Nick Goings in the first TWO series of the game beofre the offense even turned the ball over.

King sucked last game - but to say that the single biggest reason we were winning games was because Josh wasn't turning the ball over is hogwash. How does it explain the losses when we weren't turning the ball over - like the Rams, Buffalo and the Niners? Those were all games that the D had breakdowns - even though there weren't turnovers galore in there.

 

[Russ Smith]

I know that most of the yards came after halftime, but if you add the 44 yard TD that was called back, King would have had 160 yards in the first half, still an entire game's worth for McCown.

And again, most of the yards he picked up were against a heavy blitz, so don't make it sound like the Panthers were in a prevent for 2/3 of the game. When you are down 21-0 that quickly, everything is garbage time.

I agree and I didn't say prevent, like you I think King is still better than Josh, but I do think citing the yardage as he did, and you did, is a bit questionable given the turnovers.

He got a lot of long fields to work with because they kept scoring after our turnovers, that will lead to a lot of yardage.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I agree and I didn't say prevent, like you I think King is still better than Josh, but I do think citing the yardage as he did, and you did, is a bit questionable given the turnovers.

He got a lot of long fields to work with because they kept scoring after our turnovers, that will lead to a lot of yardage.

Agree also - and saying he would have this and that if not for penality is just an excuse. He still went out on the next play and threw a pick and that's inexucable. If your'e gonna hold one guy's feet to the fire and take away his excuses (like This_Guy did with Josh) at least be consistent.

 

[This_Guy]

Agree also - and saying he would have this and that if not for penality is just an excuse. He still went out on the next play and threw a pick and that's inexucable. If your'e gonna hold one guy's feet to the fire and take away his excuses (like This_Guy did with Josh) at least be consistent.

Not making excuses and I will certainly be consistant. Just pointing out that the ball was moving in the first half too, far more so than with McCown at QB. I never said that King should be absolved from the turnovers.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Not making excuses and I will certainly be consistant. Just pointing out that the ball was moving in the first half too, far more so than with McCown at QB.

but the RESULTS were the same if not worse than every other game this year - A BIG FAT DONUT - have we been shut out of any first half this year? I like seeing us move the ball as well - but it don't mean squat unless you actually finish what you start.

 

[This_Guy]

but the RESULTS were the same if not worse than every other game this year - A BIG FAT DONUT - have we been shut out of any first half this year? I like seeing us move the ball as well - but it don't mean squat unless you actually finish what you start.

Not making excuses, not saying King or anyone else played well, and coulda/shoulda doesn't count, but there was a TD called back and a missed FG in the first half. Coulda/shoulda had 10 points in a poorly played half. Doesn't help them beat Carolina, but it will help them in the coming weeks. And if you can get 10 points in a poorly played half, what happens when you play well (i.e., defense gets stops, field position, running game works, etc....)?

Point being, the if/when the turnovers go away, the points will come. The offense will move now.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Not making excuses, not saying King or anyone else played well, and coulda/shoulda doesn't count, but there was a TD called back and a missed FG in the first half. Coulda/shoulda had 10 points in a poorly played half. Doesn't help them beat Carolina, but it will help them in the coming weeks. And if you can get 10 points in a poorly played half, what happens when you play well (i.e., defense gets stops, field position, running game works, etc....)?

Point being, the if/when the turnovers go away, the points will come. The offense will move now.

I guess we'll see - I hope your right. Although you make it out to sound like we would automatcially have 10 points - when in reality a 50 yard field goal is a stretch and well - we still could have had more points if King doens't turn the ball over after the penalty.

 

[Rats]

One - I agree with the Freddie Jones thing - but two - I really think you are off base on everything else up there. You say above that THE SINGLE THING that had us in ball games was "taking care of the ball and not turning it over" and then you say that can be attributed to Josh not throwing the ball all over the place and getting picks. Do you realize by saying that that you ARE saying the Josh is THE SINGLE THING that had us in ballgames?

No - the single thing that had us in ball games was the Defense getting pressure on the QB (we didn't do that ocne in the Carolina game) and getting multiple turnovers (we got one in the Carolina game) and getting STOPS when we did have turnovers. The DEFENSE and it's ability to make up for the offenses lack of movement/mistakes WAS THE SINGLE thing that kept us in ball games Rats.

We had four turnovers in the Atlanta game - The Defense kept us in that. We scored 10 points against the Rams - the D kept us in that. We had 2 turnovers in the NE game - the Defense kept us in that one. We had a interception for a TD against the Seahawks to give them the lead in the fourth and THE DEFENSE KEPT US IN THAT ONE. We had a defensive TD against the Fins when we were down 14-3 in the third - the D kept us in that one.

The DEFENSE - the defense that for the most part didn't see a heaping dose of KVB, Calvin Pace, Hill and Levar Woods is the SINGLE BIGGEST reason we were in games because if the offense did make a mistake - the D normally could hold the floodgates - it wasn't giving up 30 yard TDs on the last play of the half or getting dominated by Nick Goings in the first TWO series of the game beofre the offense even turned the ball over.

King sucked last game - but to say that the single biggest reason we were winning games was because Josh wasn't turning the ball over is hogwash. How does it explain the losses when we weren't turning the ball over - like the Rams, Buffalo and the Niners? Those were all games that the D had breakdowns - even though there weren't turnovers galore in there.

Again as is your ususal M.O. you want to be argumentitive. My post was not to be this way. I did not say that Josh was the SINGLE reason we were in the games. Your an idiot for saying that. I said not turning the ball over was the single reason we were in those games because of the closeness of the score. Had we thrown the ball all over or had we fumbled more we would have been out of those ballgames. That implies that others not turning the ball over had us in the games as well not just Josh. In the second qt down by two TDS we were still in the game as we were down 14-3 on the road to Miami. King throws a pick and they run it all the way back. We are down 21 then as the qt ends he fumbles and they get the ball at our 40 and take it in and score were down 28. I think the turnovers had alot to do with how this game turned out. In the games previously had things like this happened we would not have been in those games. Agree, disagree, Cheese I really don't care. The defense can only overcome so much. If you play a field position game and don't turn the ball over your Defense looks a lot better. We didn't do that yesterday. In alot of our other games we did. Everyone crys because we didn't have gaudy stats on offense but we were in the games because the offense wasn't turning the ball over and we played a field position game.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Again as is your ususal M.O. you want to be argumentitive. My post was not to be this way. I did not say that Josh was the SINGLE reason we were in the games. Your an idiot for saying that. I said not turning the ball over was the single reason we were in those games because of the closeness of the score.

jesus man - you just have to go off an call people names again don't you. Correct me if I'm wrong here Rats but in interpreting your argument, You said the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON we were winning games was because we weren't turning the ball over - then you ATTRIBUTED THAT DIRECTLY TO JOSH. So in analyzation of that claim - LOGIC dictates that if Josh is attributed to NOT TURNING THE BALL OVER(as you said) and NOT TURNING THE BALL OVER IS THE SINGLE BIIGEST REASON we were winning games - well - if you can't figure out the logic that's not my fault.

I still won't call you an idiot over it - you made the ridiculous statement when in reality, THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON we're winning games is BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS CONSISTENTLY GOTTEN PRESSURE ON THE QB AND CREATED TURNOVERS.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Taking care of the ball and not turning it over is the single thing that had us in 8 of the first 9 games. You can attribute that to Josh just not throwing the ball all over the place and getting picks

And rats - just for your info see - the bold lines up above - where you claim "THE SINGLE thing" - I didn't make claim that it was the biggest - you did. Especially since use of the word SINGLE - meanign ONLY implies that it is the most important. You do know what SINGLE means right? Or was that just ANOTHER of your little exagerrations to make your point stronger?

When in reality - the biggest reason we were in games was because the defense has been making up for any errors on offense and lack of productivity while a part of this also has something to do with not turning the ball over.

 

[Rats]

And rats - just for your info see - the bold lines up above - where you claim "THE SINGLE thing" - I didn't make claim that it was the biggest - you did. Especially since use of the word SINGLE - meanign ONLY implies that it is the most important. You do know what SINGLE means right? Or was that just ANOTHER of your little exagerrations to make your point stronger?

When in reality - the biggest reason we were in games was because the defense has been making up for any errors on offense and lack of productivity while a part of this also has something to do with not turn
Alot of things on messageboards get lost in the translation. That leads to arguments. Would I dispute that the D has a large role? No. Just as you would not dispute that turning the ball over from agressive offensive play has a large role in losses. But when I am trying to make a point that the O took care of the ball in 8 of 9 I am saying the O took care of the ball. Josh just happened to be the Qb. This last game we didn't do that. We were more agressive and it lead to more mistakes. The D could not overcome that. The D had a poor game as well. It lead to a bad day in Carolina. You don't have to be an ass about the way you convey stuff. If you act like that expect me to call you names. It comes with the territory. You don't like it CHEESE WiZ( and nobody beats him) Tough, *****, Toenails.