| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NickButera
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 5026
Location: Nevada
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | NickButera wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN wrote: |
still no tds
palmer is a stat machine but for all his attempts his td #s are low.
he can throw 20 ints as long as he trows 40 tds im cool
whens the last game cp threw 2x's or more tds to his ints?
honestly i dont care about yards or rating i just care about td to int ratio |
You must be a HUGE Tebow fan then. Doesn't get very many yards, and his rating is beyond low..... but his TD to INT ratio over the last two years is 3:1 (I included rushing TD's because, a TD is a TD. 29 TD's to 9 INT's) |
he beat cp/us
and he beat pitt in a playoff game
your 30+yrold friend cp has never won a playoff game
i hate tbo but he knocked us out of the playoffs last year. jus sayin |
Hey now, playoffs smayoffs. You specifically said the only stat that mattered was TD:Int ratio.  . I wouldn't say Denver knocked us out, I think common thought is that Rivers knocked us out on the last game. And boy-howdy, he had a phenominally high TD to Int ratio. But anyway, my point (in sarcasm) was theres more to football than 1 stat. You may say its the only thing you care about, but realistically theres more to it than just that. For instance, I think I can safely say you care about winning games more than having a qb with a great td:int ratio. So if our qb has to sacrifice some td's for the sake of our running game, I think you'd be ok with that. Otherwise you're saying you'd rather have Tebow than QB's like Big Ben, Eli, Flacco, Romo, Matty Ice, etc etc. Heck even brady wasnt close to a 3:1 td:int ratio last year.
_________________
Bah-Weep-Granah-Weep-Nini-Bong
My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Baggabonez
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 3772
Location: RaiderNation
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Roninho wrote: | | Baggabonez wrote: | | oakdb36 wrote: | | big_palooka wrote: | They are basically a glorified expansion team at this stage.
|
I never expected much from this team but the concern i have is the number of old starters we have. What exactly are we trying to accomplish this season? I don't see what we're building with so many stopgap players on the roster. |
Exactly, the Raiders have an identity crisis. Right now the FO is middling. Good teams KNOW what they are. Fans aren't as dumb as they pretend to be. McKenzie should have just said "This is a .500 club but the books are screwed. For the long-term success of the club we must clean up the books."
IF this team looks non-competitive, then rip off the bandaide and get it over with. Keep in mind folks, McKenzie is a Ted Thompson disciple, TT almost got whacked before he turned the team around and I said when he got hired that people would be calling for Reggie's head just before he turned the team around. |
And what could mckenzie have done more this offseason? No cap, veteran players with untradeable contracts and no picks. Removing the band aide isnt going to work if you don't have the opportunity to land young talent to groom. |
IMVHO, by completely purging the books of the poisonous contracts that are killing this team by any means necessary. This is a decent defense despite the fact two of it's leaders, Wimbley & Routt (player's it was suggested the Raiders could not be without), got whacked. Why stop there? Whether or not some of these veteran contracts are tradeable in order to reacquire assets is a matter of opinion.
The additional cap room although marginal could have been used to back fill the voids with additional 1 year contracts. The 1 yr contracts are potentially brilliant as they could yield compensation picks in 2014 if players on these contracts have a breakout season and go on to sign lucrative deals with other teams.
_________________
2013 Mancrush: DT Richardson, OT Joeckel, FS Vaccaro, FS Rambo, WR Dobson, RB Michael, TE McDonald, OT Foketi, WR Swope |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NCOUGHMAN
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 12592
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| NickButera wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | NickButera wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN wrote: |
still no tds
palmer is a stat machine but for all his attempts his td #s are low.
he can throw 20 ints as long as he trows 40 tds im cool
whens the last game cp threw 2x's or more tds to his ints?
honestly i dont care about yards or rating i just care about td to int ratio |
You must be a HUGE Tebow fan then. Doesn't get very many yards, and his rating is beyond low..... but his TD to INT ratio over the last two years is 3:1 (I included rushing TD's because, a TD is a TD. 29 TD's to 9 INT's) |
he beat cp/us
and he beat pitt in a playoff game
your 30+yrold friend cp has never won a playoff game
i hate tbo but he knocked us out of the playoffs last year. jus sayin |
Hey now, playoffs smayoffs. You specifically said the only stat that mattered was TD:Int ratio. . I wouldn't say Denver knocked us out, I think common thought is that Rivers knocked us out on the last game. And boy-howdy, he had a phenominally high TD to Int ratio. But anyway, my point (in sarcasm) was theres more to football than 1 stat. You may say its the only thing you care about, but realistically theres more to it than just that. For instance, I think I can safely say you care about winning games more than having a qb with a great td:int ratio. So if our qb has to sacrifice some td's for the sake of our running game, I think you'd be ok with that. Otherwise you're saying you'd rather have Tebow than QB's like Big Ben, Eli, Flacco, Romo, Matty Ice, etc etc. Heck even brady wasnt close to a 3:1 td:int ratio last year. |
1) your stats or math is off brady had 39 tds to 12 ints last year iirc good for a 3.2:1 ratio buddy
2) qb's with great td:int ratios win games
3) you picked the most extreme case how bout more reasonable examples of td to int ratio last year like:
brees: 46:14 = 3.2:1
arod: 45:6 = 7.5:1
stafford: 41:16 = 2.5:1
brady: 39:12 = 3.2:1
romo 31:10 = 3.1:1
hell even eli had a 9:1 ratio in the playoffs last year.
_________________
| green24 wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN >>>>>> all of you |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Burgesskills
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 937
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | I'm not coming at you, nor am I suggesting you're a Jason Campbell apologist. What I am suggesting is that Palmer is perhaps playing more conservatively as dictated by the gameplan and it will take a few games to determine if this is the case.
In addition, citing the irony of Palmer-haters spending an entire off-season criticizing Palmer for being a gunslinger are they happy with what they see considering Palmer finished with 94.2 passer rating.
That is all . . . . |
I don't care what his rating is as long as we win the games or he puts us in a position to win games.
Somewhere in the middle would be great. If he took some shots down field without forcing the ball and if he checked down at times. I hope having Moore back this week, helps open things up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickButera
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 5026
Location: Nevada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | NickButera wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | NickButera wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN wrote: |
still no tds
palmer is a stat machine but for all his attempts his td #s are low.
he can throw 20 ints as long as he trows 40 tds im cool
whens the last game cp threw 2x's or more tds to his ints?
honestly i dont care about yards or rating i just care about td to int ratio |
You must be a HUGE Tebow fan then. Doesn't get very many yards, and his rating is beyond low..... but his TD to INT ratio over the last two years is 3:1 (I included rushing TD's because, a TD is a TD. 29 TD's to 9 INT's) |
he beat cp/us
and he beat pitt in a playoff game
your 30+yrold friend cp has never won a playoff game
i hate tbo but he knocked us out of the playoffs last year. jus sayin |
Hey now, playoffs smayoffs. You specifically said the only stat that mattered was TD:Int ratio. . I wouldn't say Denver knocked us out, I think common thought is that Rivers knocked us out on the last game. And boy-howdy, he had a phenominally high TD to Int ratio. But anyway, my point (in sarcasm) was theres more to football than 1 stat. You may say its the only thing you care about, but realistically theres more to it than just that. For instance, I think I can safely say you care about winning games more than having a qb with a great td:int ratio. So if our qb has to sacrifice some td's for the sake of our running game, I think you'd be ok with that. Otherwise you're saying you'd rather have Tebow than QB's like Big Ben, Eli, Flacco, Romo, Matty Ice, etc etc. Heck even brady wasnt close to a 3:1 td:int ratio last year. |
1) your stats or math is off brady had 39 tds to 12 ints last year iirc good for a 3.2:1 ratio buddy
2) qb's with great td:int ratios win games
3) you picked the most extreme case how bout more reasonable examples of td to int ratio last year like:
brees: 46:14 = 3.2:1
arod: 45:6 = 7.5:1
stafford: 41:16 = 2.5:1
brady: 39:12 = 3.2:1
romo 31:10 = 3.1:1
hell even eli had a 9:1 ratio in the playoffs last year. |
Must have looked up the wrong stat-year.
Regardless.... my point, again, is that a QB doesn't have to have a great TD/INT ratio to win games. TD/INT ratio isn't the end goal. Winning games is. You can have a QB with a good TD/INT ratio that loses games, and a QB with a bad TD/INT ratio that wins games. What matters most isn't the ratio... it's if he can put us in a position to win games. There are always examples on both sides, I just grabbed an obvious one.
I can guarantee that if Palmer continues what he did last sunday, and continues to throw no INT's and few TD's and can't win..... you (and everyone else, me included) will start rightly complaining that he's not putting us in positions to win games. Because that's what matters more. Wins. Not stats.
I just thought it was in some ways silly that you said the only thing that you care about is TD/INT ratio, when deep down I don't think that's the only thing you think matters most. It's like can see right through you! 
_________________
Bah-Weep-Granah-Weep-Nini-Bong
My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roninho
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1620
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Baggabonez wrote: | | Roninho wrote: | | Baggabonez wrote: | | oakdb36 wrote: | | big_palooka wrote: | They are basically a glorified expansion team at this stage.
|
I never expected much from this team but the concern i have is the number of old starters we have. What exactly are we trying to accomplish this season? I don't see what we're building with so many stopgap players on the roster. |
Exactly, the Raiders have an identity crisis. Right now the FO is middling. Good teams KNOW what they are. Fans aren't as dumb as they pretend to be. McKenzie should have just said "This is a .500 club but the books are screwed. For the long-term success of the club we must clean up the books."
IF this team looks non-competitive, then rip off the bandaide and get it over with. Keep in mind folks, McKenzie is a Ted Thompson disciple, TT almost got whacked before he turned the team around and I said when he got hired that people would be calling for Reggie's head just before he turned the team around. |
And what could mckenzie have done more this offseason? No cap, veteran players with untradeable contracts and no picks. Removing the band aide isnt going to work if you don't have the opportunity to land young talent to groom. |
IMVHO, by completely purging the books of the poisonous contracts that are killing this team by any means necessary. This is a decent defense despite the fact two of it's leaders, Wimbley & Routt (player's it was suggested the Raiders could not be without), got whacked. Why stop there? Whether or not some of these veteran contracts are tradeable in order to reacquire assets is a matter of opinion.
The additional cap room although marginal could have been used to back fill the voids with additional 1 year contracts. The 1 yr contracts are potentially brilliant as they could yield compensation picks in 2014 if players on these contracts have a breakout season and go on to sign lucrative deals with other teams. |
Ok, which guys are you thinking of? Based on age i'd say Palmer, Seymour and Kelly. Palmer imo wouldn't make much sense untill you have an alternative, the other would make some sense (although apparently kelly restructured).
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
