PDA

View Full Version : Ugly QB Stats (Continued from another thread)


The Pencil Neck
02-11-2007, 02:15 PM
This is interesting. Ugly QB stats:
<snip>
(my apologies to the thread starter for getting off topic)

I found this very interesting so I split it out into it's own thread.

These numbers are for Carr for his first 5 years, Cunningham for 86-90, Culpepper for 00-04, and Plummer for 97-01.

I expanded on Arky's numbers a little bit:

Name - Games - Sacks - Fumbles - Fumbles lost - Ints - Yards - YPA - TDs - Rushing - Rushing TDs

Carr.......... - 76 - 249 - 66 - 21 - 65 - 13391 - 6.5 - 059 - 1233 - 8
Cunningham - 75 - 277 - 57 - ?? - 63 - 14851 - 6.8 - 106 - 3232 - 23
Culpepper.. - 73 - 197 - 72 - 31 - 74 - 18604 - 7.8 - 129 - 2317 - 28
Plummer.... - 68 - 179 - 40 - 18 - 94 - 14650 - 6.6 - 072 - 900 - 8


One of my knocks against Carr is that he just doesn't get the TD's. I think we see that here.

When you look at Cunningham and Culpepper, they're putting points on the board during these periods of their careers.

I've heard that Culpepper's problem has been that, although he's a big guy, he's got small hands and he fumbles a lot. You can see that in the numbers. But 28 rushing TD's and 129 passing TD's? Jeez.

Cunningham had a helluva lot of sacks but he was back there scrambling around trying to make things happen and... he frequently did. His numbers are remarkably similar to Carr's except for the rushing TD's and rushing yardage.

Plummer during this period took the Cardinals to their first post-season victory since the 40's. The knock on him was that he just threw WAY too many interceptions. It's amazing anyone gave him a shot after this. He had 1 more year in Arizona before going to the Broncos and a lot of people were surprised that the Broncos were willing to take him. He had 3 fairly good years in Denver under Kubiak.

If I were going to draw any conclusion from this it would just be that Carr has played worse than Cunningham and Culpepper but not worse than Plummer (during the period we're talking about.) If Kubiak was able to salvage something with Plummer who was really horrible coming to the Broncos, then I will trust him to make the right decision with Carr.

TwinSisters
02-11-2007, 02:41 PM
If I were going to draw any conclusion from this it would just be that Carr has played worse than Cunningham and Culpepper but not worse than Plummer (during the period we're talking about.) If Kubiak was able to salvage something with Plummer who was really horrible coming to the Broncos, then I will trust him to make the right decision with Carr.

On Kubiak/Plummer:

How much of his success is actually Kubiak and not other factors like Calhoun?
Or a myriad of other things on the Denver team that is not here in Houston... like a solid running game.

threetoedpete
02-11-2007, 02:44 PM
...like a veteran intact, capable o-line. Weapons at TE...

TwinSisters
02-11-2007, 03:06 PM
there is also the 300 Yard game stat.

Carr has 4 in 5 seasons.

Plummer has 4 in two seasons... with a 465 game that he lit up the Cowboys with.

Cunnigham has 4 in one season!

Culpepper has 4 or more in two seperate seasons.
---

The point here is that if you are losing you expect to see more 300+ games. Yet Carr has the fewest while on the weakest team of the 4 QBs.

Wharton
02-11-2007, 03:30 PM
This is nothing new. David's lack of touchdowns has been shown on this message board over and over again.

What I can't understand is why are considering Jake Plummer? He's just an earlier version of David. Its stupid.

Tulip
02-11-2007, 03:50 PM
This is nothing new. David's lack of touchdowns has been shown on this message board over and over again.

What I can't understand is why are considering Jake Plummer? He's just an earlier version of David. Its stupid.

I wasn't that enthralled with the idea around mid-season when I realized the inevitability of it - but I've warmed to the idea over the past couple of months.

For those who love stats (and I know there's plenty on this board who do) - here's some of what McClain summarized in his Sunday notebook about Plummer under Kubiak:

Regular season record 2003-2005: 32-11
Regular season record 2006: 7-4

TD/INT 2003-2005: 60-34

Passer ratings:
2003 - 91.2
2004 - 84.5
2005 - 90.0

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/4543685.html

The Pencil Neck
02-11-2007, 04:12 PM
This is nothing new. David's lack of touchdowns has been shown on this message board over and over again.

What I can't understand is why are considering Jake Plummer? He's just an earlier version of David. Its stupid.

Well, you have to remember that the stats we were looking at here for Plummer were for his 1st 5 years in the league. If you look at his last 5 years in the league, it's a different story: 14603 yards, 6.9 ypa, 89 TD's (not including 9 rushing TD's.), 67 ints. I don't have his sack/fumble stats handy.

His performance in Denver under Kubiak was much better than either his performance in Arizona or his performance in Denver without Kubiak or Carr's performance.

Personally, I think with Plummer we'd probably win 1 or 2 more games than with Carr, I think we'd score more, but he'd also give away more interceptions. I think our passing game would be more productive overall. But I don't think that Plummer is an answer in any way, shape, or form.

The questions that our FO have to answer are:

1. Do they think that there is a franchise type QB out there that's a backup, draft choice, or free agent?
2. Do they think they can get that guy?
3. If there aren't any franchise guys out there, do they think we can get one next year?

We very well might not be able to answer our QB questions for a few years. We might have to put up with poor performance from the QB position for awhile and just try to build a great defense and hope for the best.

Which is sad.

TwinSisters
02-11-2007, 04:20 PM
It needs to be added that Plummer was injured and playing injured in two of his seasons at Arizona.

( I am going off of memory though, so I could be wrong )

run-david-run
02-11-2007, 05:10 PM
I wasn't that enthralled with the idea around mid-season when I realized the inevitability of it - but I've warmed to the idea over the past couple of months.

For those who love stats (and I know there's plenty on this board who do) - here's some of what McClain summarized in his Sunday notebook about Plummer under Kubiak:

Regular season record 2003-2005: 32-11
Regular season record 2006: 7-4

TD/INT 2003-2005: 60-34

Passer ratings:
2003 - 91.2
2004 - 84.5
2005 - 90.0

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/4543685.html

Please stop with the "QB record" bull. This is a team game, I dont care if ESPN counts QB's wins. Unless the entire defense, special teams and 10 out of 11 starters on offense arnt involved, the team wins and losses, QB's are a marginal part of the grand scheme.

gg no re
02-11-2007, 05:27 PM
They're marginal, but their ability to play when needed is critical. (hi Rex)

HoustonFrog
02-11-2007, 05:44 PM
Please stop with the "QB record" bull. This is a team game, I dont care if ESPN counts QB's wins. Unless the entire defense, special teams and 10 out of 11 starters on offense arnt involved, the team wins and losses, QB's are a marginal part of the grand scheme.

You have to be kidding. QB may be one of the most, if not the most important position in sports. That is what people fail to realize here. They can gloss it all they want but they touch the ball every play on offense and everything from the cadence, to studying film, to knowing the playbook, to reading defenses, etc comes into play. That is just a plain false statement. By following your statement then every joe with an arm in college should be able to be mediocre and play in this league.

Arky
02-11-2007, 05:53 PM
We very well might not be able to answer our QB questions for a few years. We might have to put up with poor performance from the QB position for awhile and just try to build a great defense and hope for the best.

Which is sad.

Nice work, The Pencil Neck. Can I call you TPN? ;)

This is really the ugly and the good. Man, those Culpepper offensive numbers are really nice. I believe those stats were greatly aided from the days of bombs-away-to-Chris-Carter-and-Randy Moss.... What a great passing game that was...

For the Texans, I would just like to see upgrades and stability in the O-line for a change. None of our O-linemen are ever going to be confused with pro-bowlers. They don't have to be pro-bowlers, just good and solid. Quality either from the draft and/or FA (Spencer and Winston, IMO, are two of the best steps taken in this direction). I don't think any QB is going to be able to do his job until this happens first....

Ole Miss Texan
02-11-2007, 06:05 PM
I'm kinda thinking our QB situation won't be 'finished' for a few years too. I hope we build our defense to be killer. Just look at what the raiders are doing...we can all give them a hard time but they have one of the best defenses in the league. It's built. Now if they just add a QB worth something and a little oline help they will be very hard to beat.

That's how i see us in a few years. still needing to address the QB and OLIne. but having a dangerous defense

NATHANHALE
02-11-2007, 06:33 PM
"Please stop with the "QB record" bull. This is a team game, I dont care if ESPN counts QB's wins. Unless the entire defense, special teams and 10 out of 11 starters on offense arnt involved, the team wins and losses, QB's are a marginal part of the grand scheme."

I might believe this if Carr were able to produce with the team mates around him, but this has not been the case for 5 yrs. Carr, exclusively, requires 'special' attention not afforded other players in order-according to his homers-to function at an acceptable level. Carr needs all-pros at every position, including OL that do not give up sacks and allow him all the time he needs to throw/WR that not only get open but get 'major' separation-do not drop the ball-get lots of yac/TE's that do the same as WR plus block/RB's that get lots of yds-block-catch all balls thrown to them/a defense that leads the league in fewest points allowed,etc.

Yea, it's a team game alright, as long as Carr gets all the 'sugar' handed out and-rules that apply to all the other players (like 'best' player plays) don't apply to him...
__________________

QB75
02-11-2007, 06:47 PM
"Please stop with the "QB record" bull. This is a team game, I dont care if ESPN counts QB's wins. Unless the entire defense, special teams and 10 out of 11 starters on offense arnt involved, the team wins and losses, QB's are a marginal part of the grand scheme."

I might believe this if Carr were able to produce with the team mates around him, but this has not been the case for 5 yrs. Carr, exclusively, requires 'special' attention not afforded other players in order-according to his homers-to function at an acceptable level. Carr needs all-pros at every position, including OL that do not give up sacks and allow him all the time he needs to throw/WR that not only get open but get 'major' separation-do not drop the ball-get lots of yac/TE's that do the same as WR plus block/RB's that get lots of yds-block-catch all balls thrown to them/a defense that leads the league in fewest points allowed,etc.

Yea, it's a team game alright, as long as Carr gets all the 'sugar' handed out and-rules that apply to all the other players (like 'best' player plays) don't apply to him...
__________________

You are right. Carr alone should have been able to overcome all of the normal hurdles of an expansion franchise and had the team in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. The Texans are obviously in their current state completely because of him.

Hulk75
02-11-2007, 06:59 PM
there is also the 300 Yard game stat.

Carr has 4 in 5 seasons.

Plummer has 4 in two seasons... with a 465 game that he lit up the Cowboys with.

Cunnigham has 4 in one season!

Culpepper has 4 or more in two seperate seasons.
---

The point here is that if you are losing you expect to see more 300+ games. Yet Carr has the fewest while on the weakest team of the 4 QBs.
Hit the nail RIGHT on the head.............that has been my arguement for a long time now.

HoustonFrog
02-11-2007, 07:05 PM
Hit the nail RIGHT on the head.............that has been my arguement for a long time now.

What?That he can't master the QB position and do what he is supposed to do despite himself?Right. I guess learning QB 101 might have helped him get a few more 300 yard games.

HoustonFrog
02-11-2007, 07:07 PM
You are right. Carr alone should have been able to overcome all of the normal hurdles of an expansion franchise and had the team in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. The Texans are obviously in their current state completely because of him.

No, he should of just been able to learn the basics of the position and do his part.

TwinSisters
02-11-2007, 07:24 PM
This is really the ugly and the good. Man, those Culpepper offensive numbers are really nice. I believe those stats were greatly aided from the days of bombs-away-to-Chris-Carter-and-Randy Moss.... What a great passing game that was...

His biggest season came right after Carter hung it up.. that 4700 39 TD 400+ rushing season.

Tulip
02-11-2007, 07:35 PM
QB's are a marginal part of the grand scheme.

This is a theory that only people trying to defend QBs with sub-25% win percentages can buy.

With most teams, the QB position is absolutely vital, not marginal. Otherwise there would not be such a huge premium on the position, from the draft to free agency.

Very few teams can have the luxury of being able to carry a "marginal" game manager quarterback. And those teams have to spend money on other areas to make them dominant. That money cannot be tied up in the QB. David counts $7.75 million against our cap - which means that his performance is absolutely vital to the success/failure of the Texans.

TwinSisters
02-11-2007, 07:40 PM
With most teams, the QB position is absolutely vital, not marginal. Otherwise there would not be such a huge premium on the position, from the draft to free agency.

No kidding. Look at how much the back-ups haul in.

QB75
02-11-2007, 07:55 PM
No, he should of just been able to learn the basics of the position and do his part.

:thumbdown

QB75
02-11-2007, 08:10 PM
No, he should of just been able to learn the basics of the position and do his part.

No, it's obviously all Carr's fault because the case is repeatedly made that all we have to do is substitute an a mediocre QB like Plummer and the Texans will be off to the playoffs. Fortunately, that is unlikely the path the team will take.

NATHANHALE
02-11-2007, 08:13 PM
"QB's are a marginal part of the grand scheme."



...poor, Kubiak! He said over and over again last year. "...how Carr goes, the team goes..." And, he was right, but you still better tell him why he's wrong since you know more than him...geeeeeeeeeezz
__________________

HoustonFrog
02-11-2007, 08:20 PM
No, it's obviously all Carr's fault because the case is repeatedly made that all we have to do is substitute an a mediocre QB like Plummer and the Texans will be off to the playoffs. Fortunately, that is unlikely the path the team will take.

QB75 if you want to keep blindly thinking that you can build a perfect bubble around a QB and that in order for a person to succeed in this parity filled world of free agency you have to have all the pieces in place, you go right ahead. But people who are realistic about the league and our team see a guy who has digressed and who over a 5 year period has yet to meet basic requirements like looking off receivers and throwing the ball away. What you fail to realize is that many QBs make their lines and the players around them better, not vice versa. While some may see an O-line having trouble, others may see a QB, on the same play, side stepping out of harms way to make a throw. If you are taking the most important position in sports and having to dumb down the offense for him and are having to take the ball out of his hands because you don't trust him to win you games then that is a problem. I don't necessarily believe Plummer is the answer but I do believe that he has shown alot more than Carr has and no matter who we bring in they are probably ahead of David. It would be hard not to be.

QB75
02-11-2007, 08:32 PM
QB75 if you want to keep blindly thinking that you can build a perfect bubble around a QB and that in order for a person to succeed in this parity filled world of free agency you have to have all the pieces in place, you go right ahead. But people who are realistic about the league and our team see a guy who has digressed and who over a 5 year period has yet to meet basic requirements like looking off receivers and throwing the ball away. What you fail to realize is that many QBs make their lines and the players around them better, not vice versa. While some may see an O-line having trouble, others may see a QB, on the same play, side stepping out of harms way to make a throw. If you are taking the most important position in sports and having to dumb down the offense for him and are having to take the ball out of his hands because you don't trust him to win you games then that is a problem. I don't necessarily believe Plummer is the answer but I do believe that he has shown alot more than Carr has and no matter who we bring in they are probably ahead of David. It would be hard not to be.

Sure, let's be "realistic". Regarding him "learning his part", since he has had only one season (2006) under Gary Kubiak, from his rookie year (2002) through his fourth season (2005) just whom do you suggest that he should have learned the pro QB position from?

NATHANHALE
02-11-2007, 08:42 PM
No, it's obviously all Carr's fault because the case is repeatedly made that all we have to do is substitute an a mediocre QB like Plummer and the Texans will be off to the playoffs. Fortunately, that is unlikely the path the team will take.

It won't take much for 'any' QB to do better than Carr, especially getting points on the board. A QB doesn't have to do well on every single play, but-when he has the oppurtunities-he has to be able to step up and get the job done...Carr can't do that.

In half our games last year, Carr was sacked once or not at all. Were these all games we won, no they were not-Carr had more than 1 sack against the Jags/Dolphins/Raiders.

...just imagine what our record could have been if Carr had stepped up with good protection around him and-the Raiders game-we won despite David's -5 yds passing.

Yes, we still have work to do and-yes-some areas have gotten better. But,no- QB is not one of them and it's not like anyone would have a 'huge' legacy to over come...has the bar even got off the ground, yet?

HoustonFrog
02-11-2007, 08:48 PM
Sure, let's be "realistic". Regarding him "learning his part", since he has had only one season (2006) under Gary Kubiak, from his rookie year (2002) through his fourth season (2005) just whom do you suggest that he should have learned the pro QB position from?

I'll put it this way. If you are in the NFL 5 years, no matter who your coach is, you should know the basics like 1) while outside the pocket, throw the ball away or 2) eyeing one receiver as he runs his pattern will lead a DB to jump the route. I think it is a fair statement to say that if people had seen basic improvements this wouldn't be as big a deal as it is. Considering Kubiak didn't gain faith in him as the season progressed but in fact lost faith, I'd take that to mean he wasn't learning what needed to be learned. Some of the coaches we let go, though not great in their own right, went on to coach elsewhere and are still wanted. ..Palmer with the Cowboys then Giants, etc. I have never thought he was the only problem..one of many..but he hasn't helped and we are paying him to be one of the shining lights. Part of being QB in the NFL isn't needing the ideal people, it is about lifting your own play when needed.

QB75
02-11-2007, 09:10 PM
I'll put it this way. If you are in the NFL 5 years, no matter who your coach is, you should know the basics like 1) while outside the pocket, throw the ball away or 2) eyeing one receiver as he runs his pattern will lead a DB to jump the route. I think it is a fair statement to say that if people had seen basic improvements this wouldn't be as big a deal as it is. Considering Kubiak didn't gain faith in him as the season progressed but in fact lost faith, I'd take that to mean he wasn't learning what needed to be learned. Some of the coaches we let go, though not great in their own right, went on to coach elsewhere and are still wanted. ..Palmer with the Cowboys then Giants, etc. I have never thought he was the only problem..one of many..but he hasn't helped and we are paying him to be one of the shining lights. Part of being QB in the NFL isn't needing the ideal people, it is about lifting your own play when needed.

The facts are that he was drafted out of the WAC to become a rookie QB with an NFL expansion team that hired a defensive Head Coach, no QB coach, and signed no veteran backup QB to the team. In addition the team had a patchwork offensive line, no blocking back and, at best, one pro-caliber starting wide receiver. Anyone who doesn't recognize the multiple disadvantages that he stepped into either doesn't understand the position, or simply wants to dislike him; and there appears to be a lot of each on this board.

Some people interpret that Kubiak lost faith in him by limiting what he was allowed to do in the final few games. Again, the fact is that the Colts and the Browns run defense could be exploited, so it was unnecessary to throw in those games. The strategy was to exploit the ability to run, and to keep the opponent's offense off the field. People who simply dislike Carr will interpret that as "Kubiak losing faith in Carr", regardless.

A number of factors favor the probability that Carr is returning for another season. Obviously time will tell.

CowboysTexansFan
02-11-2007, 09:13 PM
Hit the nail RIGHT on the head.............that has been my arguement for a long time now.

Hulk--why the Ravens avatar? Are you hearing that David might end up with the Ravens to back up McNair until McNair retires? That's not a team I would've expected to be a possible landing spot for David.

HoustonFrog
02-11-2007, 09:47 PM
The facts are that he was drafted out of the WAC to become a rookie QB with an NFL expansion team that hired a defensive Head Coach, no QB coach, and signed no veteran backup QB to the team. In addition the team had a patchwork offensive line, no blocking back and, at best, one pro-caliber starting wide receiver. Anyone who doesn't recognize the multiple disadvantages that he stepped into either doesn't understand the position, or simply wants to dislike him; and there appears to be a lot of each on this board.

Some people interpret that Kubiak lost faith in him by limiting what he was allowed to do in the final few games. Again, the fact is that the Colts and the Browns run defense could be exploited, so it was unnecessary to throw in those games. The strategy was to exploit the ability to run, and to keep the opponent's offense off the field. People who simply dislike Carr will interpret that as "Kubiak losing faith in Carr", regardless.

A number of factors favor the probability that Carr is returning for another season. Obviously time will tell.

I hate to tell you but there alot of QBs that are put in that same position. Guys who got killed their first year but learned and grew. Every rookie goes through it. You mention Capers yet he seemed to have a rookie, Kerry Collins, that made it to the NFC Championship game his second year at Carolina. You also fail to go forward from year 1 until now. No one expected miracles year #1 but they expect after 5 years that a guy can learn and grow. I think there are alot more people on the board who make excuses than not like the guy. I rarely see people say they don't think he is a good guy, they just think his QBing skills are lacking. Some guys know how to work through adversity and some just can't hack it. In a parity filled league you can't expect to have the perfect coach, TE, RB, WRS, line, etc and avoid injuries on top of it. That is where guys make their team better.

Your rallying cry that people have a personal vendetta is just another excuse because you lack facts. The fact is that Rosenfels would have played more if he was not injured. The fact is against the Titans with a chance to score and take a lead, Kubiak called a draw to set up a FG. The fact is that running the ball was the only way to stop Carr from making mistakes and allowing us chances in games. It isn't like this is his 2nd year. After 5 years he continues to make rookie mistakes. That is fact. I've been watching ball since the 70s and have never seen a guy get more latitude while at the same time hearing so many excuses. Guys like Couch were drafted like Carr and they are gone now. Some guys just can't handle it. The best thing is for both sides to split and to see if they prove each other wrong.

Honoring Earl 34
02-11-2007, 09:59 PM
The facts are that he was drafted out of the WAC to become a rookie QB with an NFL expansion team that hired a defensive Head Coach, no QB coach, and signed no veteran backup QB to the team. In addition the team had a patchwork offensive line, no blocking back and, at best, one pro-caliber starting wide receiver. Anyone who doesn't recognize the multiple disadvantages that he stepped into either doesn't understand the position, or simply wants to dislike him; and there appears to be a lot of each on this board.

Some people interpret that Kubiak lost faith in him by limiting what he was allowed to do in the final few games. Again, the fact is that the Colts and the Browns run defense could be exploited, so it was unnecessary to throw in those games. The strategy was to exploit the ability to run, and to keep the opponent's offense off the field. People who simply dislike Carr will interpret that as "Kubiak losing faith in Carr", regardless.

A number of factors favor the probability that Carr is returning for another season. Obviously time will tell.

Chris Palmer had him for three years . I think he has a pretty good reputation with QBs .

TwinSisters
02-11-2007, 10:08 PM
I don't know if you can really use Couch as an example. He was hurt.

If he didn't blow his shoulder out, I think he might still be around... somewhere.

HoustonFrog
02-11-2007, 10:10 PM
I don't know if you can really use Couch as an example. He was hurt.

If he didn't blow his shoulder out, I think he might still be around... somewhere.

You may be right but he was under the same scrutiny and situation and now he isn't even in the league. I really don't know if it was the transition from college to the pros or the shoulder.

TwinSisters
02-11-2007, 10:49 PM
You may be right but he was under the same scrutiny and situation and now he isn't even in the league. I really don't know if it was the transition from college to the pros or the shoulder.

I think it's his shoulder. Just briefly reading up on him:

http://www.kffl.com/player/461/nfl
June 2006

this was the most popular article. IF he repairs his shoulder, he is going to make another run 2007. He might show up here!

( also his wife is pretty hot! )
---

Anyway back to these stats... maybe we should kick Cunnigham out of the lineup and add Kurt Warner into it.

Kurt Warner is UFA right now,I believe.

QB75
02-11-2007, 11:12 PM
I hate to tell you but there alot of QBs that are put in that same position. Guys who got killed their first year but learned and grew. Every rookie goes through it. You mention Capers yet he seemed to have a rookie, Kerry Collins, that made it to the NFC Championship game his second year at Carolina. You also fail to go forward from year 1 until now. No one expected miracles year #1 but they expect after 5 years that a guy can learn and grow. I think there are alot more people on the board who make excuses than not like the guy. I rarely see people say they don't think he is a good guy, they just think his QBing skills are lacking. Some guys know how to work through adversity and some just can't hack it. In a parity filled league you can't expect to have the perfect coach, TE, RB, WRS, line, etc and avoid injuries on top of it. That is where guys make their team better.

Your rallying cry that people have a personal vendetta is just another excuse because you lack facts. The fact is that Rosenfels would have played more if he was not injured. The fact is against the Titans with a chance to score and take a lead, Kubiak called a draw to set up a FG. The fact is that running the ball was the only way to stop Carr from making mistakes and allowing us chances in games. It isn't like this is his 2nd year. After 5 years he continues to make rookie mistakes. That is fact. I've been watching ball since the 70s and have never seen a guy get more latitude while at the same time hearing so many excuses. Guys like Couch were drafted like Carr and they are gone now. Some guys just can't handle it. The best thing is for both sides to split and to see if they prove each other wrong.

You obviously don't understand the changes that were implemented between the time that the Panthers built their franchise and the Texans built theirs. If you did, you wouldn't make the comparison. I expect, and I hope, that Carr will back in 2007. That's all.

HoustonFrog
02-11-2007, 11:42 PM
You obviously don't understand the changes that were implemented between the time that the Panthers built their franchise and the Texans built theirs. If you did, you wouldn't make the comparison. I expect, and I hope, that Carr will back in 2007. That's all.

You obviously missed the point. Your excuses including coaching from a defensive coach..Capers...and a rookie put in a tough situation. I wasn't comparing how the franchises moved forward...both post pure free agency. I understand plenty. I was saying that there were two QBs coached by the defensive guy, Capers, and one of them seemed to get the basics. Again, this has included 5 years. I also included Palmer who had success with some other guys pre and post Carr. You have made no comments on the facts I pointed out and have basically claimed that people are just hating. It simply isn't true.

Honoring Earl 34
02-11-2007, 11:46 PM
You obviously missed the point. Your excuses including coaching from a defensive coach..Capers...and a rookie put in a tough situation. I wasn't comparing how the franchises moved forward...both post pure free agency. I understand plenty. I was saying that there were two QBs coached by the defensive guy, Capers, and one of them seemed to get the basics. Again, this has included 5 years. I also included Palmer who had success with some other guys pre and post Carr. You have made no comments on the facts I pointed out and have basically claimed that people are just hating. It simply isn't true.

I think Pendry was the OC for Carolina .

Arky
02-12-2007, 12:17 AM
His biggest season came right after Carter hung it up.. that 4700 39 TD 400+ rushing season.

Whatevar. :shrug: :)

I think the point of the exercise here is that even some pretty good quarterbacks can have some pretty embarrassing stats. Kind of like the home run hitter who strikes out a lot.... The home runs are great but the strikeouts... hey, not so great....

That and the fact that the QB who is sacked a lot, usually fumbles a lot and that's not a real big surprise....

HoustonFrog
02-12-2007, 12:22 AM
I think Pendry was the OC for Carolina .

Perfect, another guy. Thanks.

Hottoddie
02-12-2007, 12:40 AM
I'm so tired of reading this crap! That goes for both sides of the issue. :brickwall Can't we talk about something else for a change?

SamuraiSword
02-12-2007, 03:05 AM
I'm so tired of reading this crap! That goes for both sides of the issue. :brickwall Can't we talk about something else for a change?

two more months till the draft! Well till then I got basketball to carry me through this long drought of no pro football. :bigboss:

TwinSisters
02-12-2007, 09:31 AM
I think the point of the exercise here is that even some pretty good quarterbacks can have some pretty embarrassing stats. Kind of like the home run hitter who strikes out a lot.... The home runs are great but the strikeouts... hey, not so great....

That and the fact that the QB who is sacked a lot, usually fumbles a lot and that's not a real big surprise....

ugh! Mixing baseball with football. That's like mixing prune juice in with your beer. :D

The sack stat being used here is not showing the whole picture with Culpepper and Cunningham. Both of these guys were featured parts of their team's running game, and the number of rushing attempts is left out.

More so with Cunningham then with Culpepper, however Culpepper was still in the 70-100 range while Carr has been in the 50 range ( with a 73 max in 04 )

87-90 Cunnigham is the Eagles' leading rusher.

HoustonFrog
02-12-2007, 09:35 AM
I'm so tired of reading this crap! That goes for both sides of the issue. :brickwall Can't we talk about something else for a change?

I'd be quite happy to except we keep hearing the same stuff over and over. I'd be much happier debating Manning v. Brady on the NFL page, talking about real football facts, but this team needs help. I'm glad this stuff comes up, it helps make my point that until the two sides split, this dark cloud will always cause friction.

TwinSisters
02-12-2007, 09:38 AM
I'm so tired of reading this crap! That goes for both sides of the issue. :brickwall Can't we talk about something else for a change?

Uh? What?

This is the first time in my life and most likely the first time ever it in the natural history of the known universe that David Carr is being compared to Randall Cunningham. That's pretty fresh.

Hulk75
02-12-2007, 01:27 PM
Hulk--why the Ravens avatar? Are you hearing that David might end up with the Ravens to back up McNair until McNair retires? That's not a team I would've expected to be a possible landing spot for David.

..........:redface: Lets just say they were not pleased with Steve in the playoff game.

srstex
02-12-2007, 02:55 PM
Did anyone else watch the playoffs/SB ? P.Manning was terrible, but the D and Running game was there to bring him up-new tactic for them. SO what have we learned ?, with a good running game, good play calling, good Oline play, you can win, and Ooh yeah you do need a QB. As bad as Grossman looked, the Bears were in it till Rex threw 2 int's back to back. So stats are a contributing factor to look at a Qb to QB, and decide who to put back there, but the team needs to be there too, Plummer had what he needed last year, the best D in the NFL, and Shanahan yanked him for a rookie! That is from a man who wins consistantly with Broncos.

Arky
02-12-2007, 02:57 PM
ugh! Mixing baseball with football. That's like mixing prune juice in with your beer. :D


In your opinion. It's was used as an analogy so that even the thick would get it. BTW, I drink neither.


The sack stat being used here is not showing the whole picture with Culpepper and Cunningham. Both of these guys were featured parts of their team's running game, and the number of rushing attempts is left out.
More so with Cunningham then with Culpepper, however Culpepper was still in the 70-100 range while Carr has been in the 50 range ( with a 73 max in 04 )

87-90 Cunnigham is the Eagles' leading rusher.

And your point? What difference does it make that Cunningham and Culpepper had more rushing attempts than Carr? What about their interceptions? Plummer gets intercepted more than all of them....

This is the first time in my life and most likely the first time ever it in the natural history of the known universe that David Carr is being compared to Randall Cunningham. That's pretty fresh.

Missed the point. Let me repeat, the purpose and title of the thread was "Ugly QB stats" meaning all QB's have 'em. One might even be able to find some on Joe Montana. To qualify, the QB needs 5 consecutive years in the NFL. Marino's probably got some doozie ugly stats. But then you'd say, "OMG, your comparing David Carr to Dan Marino!", right?

Stat are stats. You can use them alone to get a good idea of individual performance or you can use them for comparison purposes. The unique thing here in this thread and one that is not looked at much at all is the 5 year sample. Since the Carr detractors frequently whine, "5 years of this (stuff)", it is interesting to pull up 5 year samples on other QB's. And it turns out, that even some pretty good QB's have some ugly stats in a 5-year period. (BTW, the "5-year" whine is a very good one - reminds me of Reagan's "4 more years")...

Regarding DC, I could go on but I won't because it would be futile to try to change anyones mind on the subject. Most people have made up their mind, don't you think? The copy & paste, broken record responses are just not worth dissecting and a huge time-waster. If I was to do a rebuttal analysis, it would get labeled as "excuses". So why :brickwall ? I've got better things to do than to "debate" the QB situation of the Houston Texans - I've already done my time and am waiting for what the Big 3 (Kubiak, Smith, McNair) decide...

The Pencil Neck
02-12-2007, 05:16 PM
Missed the point. Let me repeat, the purpose and title of the thread was "Ugly QB stats" meaning all QB's have 'em.

Arky made the original choice on the QB's (and time periods) that were included. What started all of this was that someone had said that Carr has been sacked more over a 5-year period than anyone else and I said that Cunningham had more sacks over one 5 year period. I think Arky included Culpepper because of his fumblitis and Plummer because of his interceptions.

It was really just looking at some interesting stats and I don't think there was a real "let's trash Carr over this" intent... although I might have meandered in that direction a bit. :stirpot:

For Montana and Marino, you can't find a bad 5-year period for either of those guys. Even at the ends of their careers, they really weren't bad.

TwinSisters
02-13-2007, 08:20 PM
And your point? What difference does it make that Cunningham and Culpepper had more rushing attempts than Carr? What about their interceptions? Plummer gets intercepted more than all of them....

Missed the point. Let me repeat, the purpose and title of the thread was "Ugly QB stats" meaning all QB's have 'em. Stat are stats. You can use them alone to get a good idea of individual performance or you can use them for comparison purposes. The unique thing here in this thread and one that is not looked at much at all is the 5 year sample. Since the Carr detractors frequently whine, "5 years of this (stuff)", it is interesting to pull up 5 year samples on other QB's. And it turns out, that even some pretty good QB's have some ugly stats in a 5-year period.

well let me repeat then.

Your argument on fumbles is FLAWED if you do not take into account that the listed QBs have significantly larger numbers of rushing attempts. Cunnigham and Culpepper were taking on the role of running into defenders and traffic ( while trying to throw the ball ). Both were mildly successful at it at times, while Cunningham was significantly good at it.

MEANING they have fumbles, but production to show for it. Carr and Plummer did not so much.

If you want to break out INTs, then we can grab some other QBs like Favre, Marino, Fouts, Stabler and compare them to Carr. All of these QBs have tossed INTs into the 20's. All of them have played on poor teams at different times ( except Marino with only one 6-10 season where he threw 20+ TDs and 20+ INTs )

The same principle will apply. They all threw lots of INTs, but they had production to offset it.

Arky
02-13-2007, 09:19 PM
well let me repeat then.

Your argument on fumbles is FLAWED if you do not take into account that the listed QBs have significantly larger numbers of rushing attempts. Cunnigham and Culpepper were taking on the role of running into defenders and traffic ( while trying to throw the ball ). Both were mildly successful at it at times, while Cunningham was significantly good at it.

MEANING they have fumbles, but production to show for it. Carr and Plummer did not so much.

If you want to break out INTs, then we can grab some other QBs like Favre, Marino, Fouts, Stabler and compare them to Carr. All of these QBs have tossed INTs into the 20's. All of them have played on poor teams at different times ( except Marino with only one 6-10 season where he threw 20+ TDs and 20+ INTs )

The same principle will apply. They all threw lots of INTs, but they had production to offset it.

Aight, that's cool. :) Now I understand.

But don't you think that the running QB that is on the move and who may (Cunningham) or may not (Culpepper, Carr, Plummer) have the ball tucked away, is less likely to fumble than the pocket passer? I do. The pocket passer would seem more vulnerable to me and more likely to fumble. (And just to clarify, I'm sure all these guys have been in all the different situations before at one time or another)

I suppose it's still kind how one presents it: For example, if I was a local sports radio host in a city and didn't like the local QB I could say, "102 interceptions in the last 5 years, come on!" as if that was all one would need to know to know the guy was a bum, my listeners might actually think he *is* a bum. 102 interceptions is pretty ugly, IMO, and that would be, of course, Dan Marino (1985-1989). But they do not tell the other side of the story which would be monster TD, yardage and offensive production. And get this: Marino was sacked just 60 times (compare to Carr's 249)! Sixty! Not just one year - 5 years! Now, that's protection! And he only had 39 fumbles (Fumbles Lost = unknown).

Which proves again and one mo' time for Rich "66 fumbles!" Lord:

The quarterback who is sacked a lot, fumbles a lot.

TwinSisters
02-13-2007, 10:35 PM
Lord is wrong for other reasons, but that's no real fun to talk about.
---

Cunnigham and Culpepper did not tuck the ball until the LOS was crossed in most cases. They ran with the ball in one hand to threaten a throw to create space to get yards... usually with one spy gunning up on them and somebody else tailing them.

In Cunnighams case, the RB was would spread the LBs and was often a primary target.

Culpepper was little different. They used PA and WRs to make room. ( in his early seasons )

I don't remember what Plummer did in Arizona that well. He did target a RB in his best season though.
---

Dan Marino's low sack count has everything to do with his release time, not his offensive line. There are no stats for this and I can only go off of what everyone else says around him. It's like throwing velocity, another important attribute that is not tracked well, but is critical to the success of some QBs.

( Zimmerman supposedly clocked a bunch of them, but I have never seen a real list of all the quarterbacks to judge against )

EDIT:
plus I think Bruce Smith said something about his release too. I can't find the quote right now?? But it's out there.
Somewhere.

Arky
02-13-2007, 10:59 PM
Dan Marino's low sack count has everything to do with his release time, not his offensive line. .....

OMG, sorry, just can't let this one slip by. Everything? Didn't he have a pro-bowler or two on that line?

thunderkyss
02-13-2007, 11:13 PM
Cunnigham and Culpepper did not tuck the ball until the LOS was crossed in most cases. They ran with the ball in one hand to threaten a throw to create space to get yards... usually with one spy gunning up on them and somebody else tailing them.

It's also very rare that you'll find a QB that knows how to tuck the ball when rushing. Most will have their hands around the cone......... few(if any at all) will cover the point on the ball, and adhere to the three points of contact between the ball & the body.

Arky
02-14-2007, 12:05 AM
It's also very rare that you'll find a QB that knows how to tuck the ball when rushing. Most will have their hands around the cone......... few(if any at all) will cover the point on the ball, and adhere to the three points of contact between the ball & the body.

So, your avatar is *not* the way to do it? ;)

Hookem Horns
02-14-2007, 12:37 AM
..........:redface: Lets just say they were not pleased with Steve in the playoff game.

Now a Panthers avatar? Wouldn't that be ironic if the Panthers ended up with the #1 and #2 overall picks of the 2002 draft. Actually, I don't think Delhomme is that bad for them to be running after Carr.

TwinSisters
02-14-2007, 01:36 AM
OMG, sorry, just can't let this one slip by. Everything? Didn't he have a pro-bowler or two on that line?

He had two at different times throughout his career. His line was not that great and you can see it in their running game. 17 years and only 2 seasons with a decent running game.

Their poor running game shows up in the yards per attempt for the team, the Dolphins could barely get over 4 yards a carry ( 86/87 ) and often ended up in the bottom of the league.

You can look at other lines like the Redskins ( without Pro Bowl RBs ) routinely post over 4 yards a carry on average.

I am sure a little bit of it is stereotyping from Marino's last seasons, but that's what is said about Marino and his Super Bowl bids... he never had the defense and then when he did ( 98 ), the running game dryed up on him.

EDIT: Let make this more clear... we are talking about why his number of sacks is significantly lower than everyone else's... people like Favre, Elway, etc. It's all about his release time. With a normal human release time... his sacks would look the same as Elway and so forth. ( or a regular pocket passer )

Arky
02-14-2007, 02:05 AM
He had two at different times throughout his career. His line was not that great and you can see it in their running game. 17 years and only 2 seasons with a decent running game.

Their poor running game shows up in the yards per attempt for the team, the Dolphins could barely get over 4 yards a carry ( 86/87 ) and often ended up in the bottom of the league.



Hmmm, well, I looked it up after I posted and found this:

OL Miami Pro-Bowlers (http://www.dolphinsinfo.com/numbers2.htm#pro) during the Marino years:

1983 - Ed Newman (G), Dwight Stephenson (C)
1984 - Ed Newman (G), Dwight Stephenson (C)
1986 - Ray Foster (G), Dwight Stephenson (C)

Does seem kind of strange that they didn't have a better running game with a couple of pro-bowlers like that... But can't say as I blame them for being pass happy when they've got Marino....

Wonder when the Texans will have a pro-bowler come from the O-line.... :shades:

NATHANHALE
02-14-2007, 02:20 AM
Hmmm, well, I looked it up after I posted and found this:

OL Miami Pro-Bowlers (http://www.dolphinsinfo.com/numbers2.htm#pro) during the Marino years:

1983 - Ed Newman (G), Dwight Stephenson (C)
1984 - Ed Newman (G), Dwight Stephenson (C)
1986 - Ray Foster (G), Dwight Stephenson (C)

Does seem kind of strange that they didn't have a better running game with a couple of pro-bowlers like that... But can't say as I blame them for being pass happy when they've got Marino....

Wonder when the Texans will have a pro-bowler come from the O-line.... :shades:

Question should be--who will be all-pro first? QB or OL

Arky
02-14-2007, 03:02 AM
Question should be--who will be all-pro first? QB or OL

I asked first! :neener:

thunderkyss
02-14-2007, 07:19 AM
So, your avatar is *not* the way to do it? ;)

Exactly..... That goon needs to cover the point of the ball. If anyone caught him on that run, and put a helmet on the ball, it's coming out.

if they don't, it's most likely a touchdown.....