'10 IL QB Tommy Rees (Notre Dame Man)

[Bluto]

Kids going to win the Heisman, Outland, Lombardi, Jewled Shillelagh, Red River Rivalry, Indy 500, NY Marathon and the Powerball Lotto next season! That's my bold prediction! Tommy and touchdown both start with T! T is the third letter in Notre! It's so obvious! Lets go Irish!

 

[NDWorld247]

Also, to whoever posted he wasn't "bad" against BYU... there was a string from the 1st quarter through the last minute of the 3rd quarter where he didn't complete a single pass. That's an entire half of a game without a completion. In no universe is that good.

Well this isn't entirely true considering the last pass of the 1st quarter was a TD to Eifert. So, he didn't complete a pass from the beginning of the 2nd quarter to the end of the 3rd quarter. But he only threw seven passes in that span and of the seven, two were drops (with one leading to an INT) and one should have been called defensive pass interference. Another pass was a miscommunication that could be on Rees or TJ Jones. So, not his best stretch of football, but he wasn't bad at all.

And I find it hilarious people will critique how nice a completion or TD pass looks. That's just ridiculous.

 

[IrishLax]

Well this isn't entirely true considering the last pass of the 1st quarter was a TD to Eifert. So, he didn't complete a pass from the beginning of the 2nd quarter to the end of the 3rd quarter.

I mean... not to belabor the point, but by the letter of the English language what I said was correct. From 1:30 of the 1st quarter to 1:20 of the 3rd quarter there was not a pass completed by Tommy Rees. So... "there was a string from the 1st quarter to the last minute of the 3rd where he didn't complete a pass". Would it have made you feel better if I had said from the "end" or "from the last drive" of the 1st quarter? All semantics that I don't know why you saw a need to argue this point... especially since the span was almost exactly 1 half worth of game time which is what I said. Moving on......

But he only threw seven passes in that span and of the seven, two were drops (with one leading to an INT) and one should have been called defensive pass interference. Another pass was a miscommunication that could be on Rees or TJ Jones. So, not his best stretch of football, but he wasn't bad at all.

So 0-7 for 0 yards and an INT isn't "bad"? That's a -28.57 passer rating. A NEGATIVE passer rating. Good lord... we're supposed to absolve him because he had some drops and a miscommunication? What about the other passes? The reason he "only" threw 7 passes was that he was 0-4 on 3rd down and killed drives... thus depriving himself of more attempts.

Maybe this wasn't the worst quarterbacking in the history of football, but a negative passer rating with no completions and a pick sure as hell isn't good.

And I find it hilarious people will critique how nice a completion or TD pass looks. That's just ridiculous.

Yeah, you mean like draft scouts and analysts that evaluate throwing motion, accuracy, timing, etc. because it is paramount to evaluating how "good" a QB is? Yeah, that's ridiculous. Absolutely bat sh*t crazy.

 

[Irish Insanity]

BK said (I think on the SVP show) that Rees showed things last year that he has never been capable of before. Now if he can get Rees to show those 'things' consistently, we will be ok. I see OU and Stanford as possible losses and the rest very winnable. 10-2 and a BCS bowl seems reasonable to me.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Kids going to win the Heisman, Outland, Lombardi, Jewled Shillelagh, Red River Rivalry, Indy 500, NY Marathon and the Powerball Lotto next season! That's my bold prediction! Tommy and touchdown both start with T! T is the third letter in Notre! It's so obvious! Lets go Irish!

You could write for Glenn Beck haha

 

[NDdomer2]

BK said (I think on the SVP show) that Rees showed things last year that he has never been capable of before. Now if he can get Rees to show those 'things' consistently, we will be ok. I see OU and Stanford as possible losses and the rest very winnable. 10-2 and a BCS bowl seems reasonable to me.

let's hope we get lucky and draw a bcs opponent like Michigan did i dint know if another high pprofile loss will be good.

 

[NDWorld247]

I mean... not to belabor the point, but by the letter of the English language what I said was correct. From 1:30 of the 1st quarter to 1:20 of the 3rd quarter there was not a pass completed by Tommy Rees. So... "there was a string from the 1st quarter to the last minute of the 3rd where he didn't complete a pass". Would it have made you feel better if I had said from the "end" or "from the last drive" of the 1st quarter? All semantics that I don't know why you saw a need to argue this point... especially since the span was almost exactly 1 half worth of game time which is what I said. Moving on......

Your phrasing was misleading to make your point. I cleared it up in a more accurate manner.

So 0-7 for 0 yards and an INT isn't "bad"? That's a -28.57 passer rating. A NEGATIVE passer rating. Good lord... we're supposed to absolve him because he had some drops and a miscommunication? What about the other passes? The reason he "only" threw 7 passes was that he was 0-4 on 3rd down and killed drives... thus depriving himself of more attempts.

Maybe this wasn't the worst quarterbacking in the history of football, but a negative passer rating with no completions and a pick sure as hell isn't good..

There you go again skewing the stats. The first 3rd down was 3rd and 10 after another run, run, pass drive. Ok, that one is, reluctantly, on Tommy, but there's not a QB in the world that will convert that more than 50% of the time. The second 3rd down was the Daniels drop that led to an interception. You really put that one on Tommy? The third was a 3rd and 7 that Eifert dropped, granted he was short of the first down and the result (a FG) would have been the same. You can probably spread blame to Tommy for not throwing past the sticks, Eifert for not running a deep enough route, or the OC for calling a play short of the 1st down, or all of the above. The fourth was a 3rd and 5 that was clearly pass interference. It was a catchable ball.

Yeah, you mean like draft scouts and analysts that evaluate throwing motion, accuracy, timing, etc. because it is paramount to evaluating how "good" a QB is? Yeah, that's ridiculous. Absolutely bat sh*t crazy.

You can't have it both ways, Lax. You want to discredit Tommy because he was 0-7 and you want to discredit passes he completed, including TDs. You can't ignore the fact there were at least 3 drops in those 7 passes and put it all on Tommy, while also crediting the WR for the great catches they made on other receptions. Either all passes, regardless of what the WR does, is on Tommy, or you can look at the play and give credit/criticism where it's due. Cake or ice cream, not both. Your decision.

 

[GaryMcLain'sSkiLodge]

Very good point. He's very good when he has a clean pocket to set his feet.... throwing on the run, stepping up under pressure, etc. are when problems happen. He just doesn't have great footwork or athleticism.

I expect this year to be the best Tommy Rees we have seen by far. This is the first time he will be "the man" under center. The question is whether that will be good enough. I'm more worried about red zone efficiency than anything else.

I really hope we move beyond this sort of red zone play calling:

Rush for 3 yards max
Incomplete fade
Incomplete fade
Field Goal

Winning teams are creative in the red zone. A good running game will help, but we also need to come up with an effective passing game. We don't have a Floyd or Eifert this year, so jump balls won't be effective 60% of the time. I'm hoping that 2 or 3 tight end passing sets become the norm, where mismatches are created.

 

[IrishLax]

Your phrasing was misleading to make your point. I cleared it up in a more accurate manner.

No it wasn't. It was entirely accurate as stated... as I clearly explained. It sure as hell wasn't "misleading to make a point"... I said that there was a stretch of about a half of gametime where he didn't complete a pass. From 1:30 in the 1Q to 1:20 in the 2Q he didn't complete a pass. That is exactly 30 minutes and 10 seconds. So I was extremely accurate. The end.

There you go again skewing the stats. The first 3rd down was 3rd and 10 after another run, run, pass drive. Ok, that one is, reluctantly, on Tommy, but there's not a QB in the world that will complete that pass more than 50% of the time. The second 3rd down was the Daniels drop that led to an interception. You really put that one on Tommy? The third was a 3rd and 7 that Eifert dropped, granted he was short of the first down and the result (a FG) would have been the same. You can probably spread blame to Tommy for not throwing past the sticks, Eifert for not running a deep enough route, or the OC for calling a play short of the 1st down, or all of the above. The fourth was a 3rd and 5 that was clearly pass interference. It was a catchable ball.

To an extent I get what you're saying, but it's all window dressing. Like the old idiom about putting lipstick on a pig. You're literally trying to use "context" to argue that 0-7 with negative QB rating isn't bad and that somehow Tommy played well during a stretch where zero passes were completed. Come on....

You can't have it both ways, Lax. You want to discredit Tommy because he was 0-7 and you want to discredit passes he completed, including TDs. You can't ignore the fact there were at least 3 drops in those 7 passes and put it all on Tommy, while also crediting the WR for the great catches they made on other receptions. Either all passes, regardless of what the WR does, is on Tommy, or you can look at the play and give credit/criticism where it's due. Cake or ice cream, not both. Your decision.

In what universe am I having it both ways? On one hand, I point out bad throws in a highlight film. On the other hand, I point out that going 0-7 with negative QB rating cannot be rationally considered good under any normal circumstance. That's it. That is the total extent of my statements. How are those two statements in logical conflict?

To flesh this out, let's delve into the context. Even if Tommy completed all 3 of those drops, he's still 3 for 7 in a half of play with minimal yards. THAT IS NOT GOOD. Good is 8-12, 130, 1 TD 0 INT. Below average is 6-12, 80, 0 TD. Really, really bad is 3-12, 50 yards, 0 TD. 0 for 7 with 0 yards and 1 INT is mythical levels of bad as far as stat lines go... but as I clearly said earlier, I'm not putting him in that category. I am giving him full credit for the context. And as such, I simply put him in the "not good" category.

To argue otherwise, you either have to have a very low threshold for what level of quarterbacking is "good" or you have to be ignoring the play on the field. It's really that simple. There is no other way to make a case for even his best hypothetical 3-7 (or 3-6 if you want to start creating your own penalties) being "good".

 

[Rhode Irish]

To an extent I get what you're saying, but it's all window dressing. Like the old idiom about putting lipstick on a pig. You're literally trying to use "context" to argue that 0-7 with negative QB rating isn't bad and that somehow Tommy played well during a stretch where zero passes were completed. Come on....

I hate to stick my neck in here, but I do think you have to acknowledge context, at least in a small sample. Seven throws aren't a lot of throws, no matter how much time went off the clock. If three or four of those seven were legitimately not his fault, then that totally changes the whole argument. Citing a guy's passer rating on any given small set of throws is also basically meaningless.

In what universe am I having it both ways? On one hand, I point out bad throws in a highlight film. On the other hand, I point out that going 0-7 with negative QB rating cannot be rationally considered good under any normal circumstance. That's it. That is the total extent of my statements. How are those two statements in logical conflict?

It feels like on one hand you are saying only the end result matters, not the context (0-7, 1 INT is bad, doesn't matter how he got there), and on the other hand you are saying the opposite when you say that certain completions are bad throws. I know you explicitly said you aren't saying that, but you still kind of are saying that.

Anyways, I think you're both a little right. Tommy just isn't going to throw for 3800 yards and 30 TDs and get drafted in first round. He just is not that skilled. There are undoubtedly physical limitations that you're dealing with, and he has been mistake prone at times during his career. But he also has been there before and won as a less experienced player with not as good of a team around him. As someone who is usually more about empirical analysis than gut feelings, even I have to admit that the kid has some sort of moxie thing that gives me more confidence than is probably warranted.

 

[Irishman77]

I'm rooting for tha Malik kid

 

[NDWorld247]

No it wasn't. It was entirely accurate as stated... as I clearly explained. It sure as hell wasn't "misleading to make a point"... I said that there was a stretch of about a half of gametime where he didn't complete a pass. From 1:30 in the 1Q to 1:20 in the 2Q he didn't complete a pass. That is exactly 30 minutes and 10 seconds. So I was extremely accurate. The end.

Your initial wording was misleading. How can you start the clock when he's not even on the field? Start the clock when he takes the field. Like I said, not entirely true and misleading to prove your point.

To an extent I get what you're saying, but it's all window dressing. Like the old idiom about putting lipstick on a pig. You're literally trying to use "context" to argue that 0-7 with negative QB rating isn't bad and that somehow Tommy played well during a stretch where zero passes were completed. Come on.....

I said it was not his best stretch of football, but HE wasn't bad. I am not judging his stats. I am judging his performance and his performance shows me that he threw catchable balls on more than half of the throws. If his receivers catch those balls, we wouldn't even be talking about this stretch of the game, but if we were, we'd be agreeing he played well. Not great, not bad, but well.

In what universe am I having it both ways? On one hand, I point out bad throws in a highlight film. On the other hand, I point out that going 0-7 with negative QB rating cannot be rationally considered good under any normal circumstance. That's it. That is the total extent of my statements. How are those two statements in logical conflict?

Well, you start your argument by saying you can't understand how people can think he played "well" in 2012 and discuss how his receivers make great catches in his highlight. Then, for those of us that don't think he was "bad" against BYU, you point out his stats during a stretch of the game, but then you are not willing to take into account the performance of WRs during this stretch. So, yeah, there is conflict in your logic.

To flesh this out, let's delve into the context. Even if Tommy completed all 3 of those drops, he's still 3 for 7 in a half of play with minimal yards. THAT IS NOT GOOD. Good is 8-12, 130, 1 TD 0 INT. Below average is 6-12, 80, 0 TD. Really, really bad is 3-12, 50 yards, 0 TD. 0 for 7 with 0 yards and 1 INT is mythical levels of bad as far as stat lines go... but as I clearly said earlier, I'm not putting him in that category. I am giving him full credit for the context. And as such, I simply put him in the "not good" category.

So, would you say 7-9 for 117 yards and a TD is "good"? Well, those are Tommy's stats in the other half of the game you're ignoring. What's the level up from "good"? Great? Fvcking Awesome? So, looking at the game in its entirety, is it so hard to believe some of us think Tommy played well vs. BYU?

To argue otherwise, you either have to have a very low threshold for what level of quarterbacking is "good" or you have to be ignoring the play on the field. It's really that simple. There is no other way to make a case for even his best hypothetical 3-7 (or 3-6 if you want to start creating your own penalties) being "good".

Unfortunately, you ignored half of the game. I did not.

 

[woolybug25]

I find joy in the fact that my simple comment of:

"Eat $hit, Jason"

Turned into this.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

Reading this thread makes me feel like my belief in a 9-3 season is overly optimistic. I remember watching the BYU game at an internet cafe in Cartagena and all the Colombians thinking I was crazy for yelling at the computer haha. Although the lady that ran the place kept it open longer than usual so I could finish the game. She was very happy when I told her my team won, but I dont think she understood my excitement was subdued largely because of how bad Tommy was.

 

[Booslum31]

Reading this thread makes me feel like my belief in a 9-3 season is overly optimistic. I remember watching the BYU game at an internet cafe in Cartagena and all the Colombians thinking I was crazy for yelling at the computer haha. Although the lady that ran the place kept it open longer than usual so I could finish the game. She was very happy when I told her my team won, but I dont think she understood my excitement was subdued largely because of how bad Tommy was.

Simply put I think we need to keep him out of third and long situations. IMO this season comes down to how the O-line comes together. They need to be dominant. If not...things could get scary in hostile houses (Mich and Stanford) and 8-4 becomes a real possibility.

 

[NDdomer2]

I find joy in the fact that my simple comment of:

"Eat $hit, Jason"

Turned into this.

not seeing anything here man

 

[woolybug25]

Untathletic QB's are what they will be after their first three years...

Tom Brady
Junior - 15 TD's, 12INT
Senior - 20 TD's, 6 INT

Peyton Manning
Junior - 20 TD's, 10INT
Senior - 37 TD's, 11 INT

Doug Flutie
Junior - 17 TD's, 15INT
Senior - 30 TD's, 13 INT

Not saying that he will ever end up like any of these guys, but I do find it comical of all the crystal ball experts on here that believe that Rees cant possibly believe that he improve.

 

[NDWorld247]

Untathletic QB's are what they will be after their first three years...

Doug Flutie
Junior - 17 TD's, 15INT
Senior - 30 TD's, 13 INT

Not saying that he will ever end up like any of these guys, but I do find it comical of all the crystal ball experts on here that believe that Rees cant possibly believe that he improve.

Did you just call Doug Flutie unathletic?

 

[IrishLax]

Your initial wording was misleading. How can you start the clock when he's not even on the field? Start the clock when he takes the field. Like I said, not entirely true and misleading to prove your point.

It's only misleading if you can't read since it was factually accurate to the letter... as was explained. Redefining parameters to satisfy your view of things is just asinine. There was 30 minutes and 10 seconds of game time, starting in the 1st quarter, between completed passes. This isn't debatable. This isn't miselading. This is a fact. And I never represented anything besides this fact, pointing out there was a half of game time between completed passes. It's really that simple and the fact that you continue to belabor this point is really unbecoming. Your modus operandi since you started posting here seems to be to dig in your heels whenever someone disagrees with you... even when clearly in the wrong, such as with your "facts" about why EV asked out of his LOI... and refuse to back down from your position.

This tactic gets quite tiresome and you need to stop. I am all about debate and discussion... but I have little patience for people who are intentionally obstinate for the sake of being obstinate. And I especially don't have patience for people who tell me I was being intentionally misleading.

I said it was not his best stretch of football, but HE wasn't bad. I am not judging his stats. I am judging his performance and his performance shows me that he threw catchable balls on more than half of the throws. If his receivers catch those balls, we wouldn't even be talking about this stretch of the game, but if we were, we'd be agreeing he played well. Not great, not bad, but well.

Well, you start your argument by saying you can't understand how people can think he played "well" in 2012 and discuss how his receivers make great catches in his highlight. Then, for those of us that don't think he was "bad" against BYU, you point out his stats during a stretch of the game, but then you are not willing to take into account the performance of WRs during this stretch. So, yeah, there is conflict in your logic.

So, would you say 7-9 for 117 yards and a TD is "good"? Well, those are Tommy's stats in the other half of the game you're ignoring. What's the level up from "good"? Great? Fvcking Awesome? So, looking at the game in its entirety, is it so hard to believe some of us think Tommy played well vs. BYU?

See, I don't on the surface disagree with the spirit of a lot of what you're saying. But there is the gigantic flaw in your logic that would be quite obvious to you if you took a step back for a second to consider it. The flaw is that if you want to give Tommy all of the "shoulda, woulda, coulda" points for drops and penalties you think should've been called and the like, then you should be penalizing him equally for miraculous catches people maybe on crappy throws. But you're not. Of all the things so far, this would be the biggest conflict of logic.

The discussion of bad throws on his highlight film was distinct from this one. This is not a novel concept to grasp. To the former, I was just remarking that usually you expect better plays on "highlights"... you expect people to look like Gods. What you don't expect "wow, I can't believe that worked out" type plays. I was using this to illustrate how Tommy did not have a complete body of work, NOT as indication of how I would or would approach evaluating someone's performance in a singular game.

In the second discussion, we're actually looking at how he performed in a specific game and evaluating that performance. Two completely distinct discussions.

Unfortunately, you ignored half of the game. I did not.

Not even close. I simply brought up an anecdote about how he went in the tank for a half as a clear example of how I didn't think he played well in that game. And it has snow balled from there with you nitpicking over that stretch I brought up... so we just haven't gotten around to talking about the game as a whole.

If you want to delve into every pass he threw in that game and which were good and make excuses for all of the bad ones and blame the coaches for play calling we can do that. We can spend all night dressing up the pig until we come to the conclusion that his sub 50% completing day with less than 120 yards passing was him playing "well." I'd tell you he showed limited playmaking ability but made a few clutch ones that mattered, failed to convert the tough plays when needed throughout most of the game, got bailed out by great plays by receivers as many times as they had drops, and only had 2 TD drives in a full day's work. I'd tell you that the threshold for playing "well" is usually higher than that and I consider that "bad." On just vanilla stats, your "good" day typically involves at minimum 250 yards, 2:1 TD to INT ratio, and a 60% completion percentage for a college QB... because usually drops/great grabs cancel each other out. And while basic stats might not telling the whole story, they tell a pretty darn good one.

 

[arrowryan]

No my 6 bad and/or jump ball throws are:
-Throw to Goodman against Purdue
-PI against Stanford
-Riddick in OT
-TJ Jones TD in OT
-Eifert #1 against BYU
-TJ Jones against BYU

Those all require ridiculous catches and/or good luck to be completed. And these are his highlights.

Those are bad throws!? Ha! Okay

Let's start with the pass to Riddick in OT. Where did you want him to throw it? He threw it to where only Riddick could catch it, no one else. He was be rushed and he made a great throw. If it was thrown to Riddick's inside shoulder, then it would've been picked off by either the corner back or safety.

The throw to Goodman against Purdue. Rees was being tackled as he threw that ball and he threw it off his back foot! It was either throw it to Goodman or take the sack on 3rd down. He made a hell of a throw and all Goodman had to was adjust. Even the below average college receivers are expected to adjust when needed to

 

[woolybug25]

Did you just call Doug Flutie unathletic?

Are you talking about the same 5'10" dual threat QB that had less than 3 yards a carry in his career?

Then Yes...

 

[Booslum31]

Are you talking about the same 5'10" dual threat QB that had less than 3 yards a carry in his career?

Then Yes...

I think you got the first two right in Brady and Manning. Flutie could motor. How 'bout Billy Kilmer, Johnny Unites and Sonny Jergenson?

 

[NDWorld247]

It's only misleading if you can't read since it was factually accurate to the letter... as was explained. Redefining parameters to satisfy your view of things is just asinine. There was 30 minutes and 10 seconds of game time, starting in the 1st quarter, between completed passes. This isn't debatable. This isn't miselading. This is a fact. And I never represented anything besides this fact, pointing out there was a half of game time between completed passes.

Isn't this what you did? Why didn't Tommy have any completions at the end of the 1st quarter? Because he was on the fvcking bench. But, you're right, this isn't misleading. You're just stating facts. Forgive me for trying to put the "facts" in context.

See, I don't on the surface disagree with the spirit of a lot of what you're saying. But there is the gigantic flaw in your logic that would be quite obvious to you if you took a step back for a second to consider it. The flaw is that if you want to give Tommy all of the "shoulda, woulda, coulda" points for drops and penalties you think should've been called and the like, then you should be penalizing him equally for miraculous catches people maybe on crappy throws. But you're not. Of all the things so far, this would be the biggest conflict of logic.

So, I can't have my cake and eat it too? But you can? This is EXACTLY what I said to you, only the other way around. Should I respond as you did --- "In what universe am I having it both ways?"

The difference is I don't think Tommy should be penalized for throwing a catchable ball. It's his job to put the ball in a position to be caught. If Tommy does his job and the WR makes a great catch then Tommy did his job. If Tommy does his job and the WR drops it then Tommy did his job. Why in the world (or universe) should I penalize him for throwing a completion?

The discussion of bad throws on his highlight film was distinct from this one. This is not a novel concept to grasp. To the former, I was just remarking that usually you expect better plays on "highlights"... you expect people to look like Gods. What you don't expect "wow, I can't believe that worked out" type plays. I was using this to illustrate how Tommy did not have a complete body of work, NOT as indication of how I would or would approach evaluating someone's performance in a singular game.

In the second discussion, we're actually looking at how he performed in a specific game and evaluating that performance. Two completely distinct discussions.

This is such BS. See Rhode Irish's post above which you conveniently ignored. He does a great job explaining how the two discussions are one in the same. I'm not going to waste my time.

Not even close. I simply brought up an anecdote about how he went in the tank for a half as a clear example of how I didn't think he played well in that game. And it has snow balled from there with you nitpicking over that stretch I brought up... so we just haven't gotten around to talking about the game as a whole.

If you want to delve into every pass he threw in that game and which were good and make excuses for all of the bad ones and blame the coaches for play calling we can do that. We can spend all night dressing up the pig until we come to the conclusion that his sub 50% completing day with less than 120 yards passing was him playing "well." I'd tell you he showed limited playmaking ability but made a few clutch ones that mattered, failed to convert the tough plays when needed throughout most of the game, got bailed out by great plays by receivers as many times as they had drops, and only had 2 TD drives in a full day's work. I'd tell you that the threshold for playing "well" is usually higher than that and I consider that "bad." On just vanilla stats, your "good" day typically involves at minimum 250 yards, 2:1 TD to INT ratio, and a 60% completion percentage for a college QB... because usually drops/great grabs cancel each other out. And while basic stats might not telling the whole story, they tell a pretty darn good one.

I'm not interested in having this discussion. You're going to ignore the "bad" throws that were caught, the "good" throws that were dropped, the INT that wasn't his fault, the three FG drives he led, the conservative play calling that would have NEVER led to him throwing for 250 yards, etc. No thanks. You, and the rest of the people who rate QBs based on their fantasy numbers, can continue to think he had a bad game while me, and the rest of the people that actually understand stats rarely tell the whole story, will continue to believe he played well. We can agree to disagree and move on.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

Are you talking about the same 5'10" dual threat QB that had less than 3 yards a carry in his career?

Then Yes...

NFL.com ranked Doug Flutie #9 on top 10 mobile QBs in NFL history.

 

[woolybug25]

I think you got the first two right in Brady and Manning. Flutie could motor. How 'bout Billy Kilmer, Johnny Unites and Sonny Jergenson?

The stats are the stats. He had less than three yards a carry as a dual threat QB. He had a 53% career completion % and less 58% completion percentage in his first three seasons. His senior season... 60.4%...

 

[NDWorld247]

Are you talking about the same 5'10" dual threat QB that had less than 3 yards a carry in his career?

Then Yes...

He actually averaged 6.1 ypc over his 21 professional football seasons. If you're referring to his college rushing stats, don't forget sacks counted as a rushing attempt and yardage lost when he played at BC. But, I'm all done arguing for the night.

 

[IrishLax]

Isn't this what you did? Why didn't Tommy have any completions at the end of the 1st quarter? Because he was on the fvcking bench. But, you're right, this isn't misleading. You're just stating facts. Forgive me for trying to put the "facts" in context.

Yeah, except I did put the facts in context when I said "that's an entire half of game"... misleading would've been say it was 3 quarters or something like that. You literally found a need to critique me for posting game time exactly as it was and how it is always reported by every TV/news source for every sport.

In basketball, if a player goes on a scoring drought they show the time on screen from the last made basket. They don't subtract time for the possession the other team just had or if he was subbed out for a bit. In football, things like "the Steelers haven't scored in 22 minutes..." or "Tommy Rees hasn't completed a pass since the 1st quarter..." (which is what was said/shown in the broadcast) the stat it is always measured in game time since the last occurrence. This is just how it is done. It's both common sense and an industry standard and there is nothing remotely misleading about it when presented in full context (i.e. "there was a string from the 1st quarter to the last minute of the third quarter ... one half of game time."). I say this as someone who has done a fair amount of live game coverage and freelance sports writing over the years... go check past threads for some links to articles/live game blogs/etc. I've done for ESPN and the like.

You not only saw a need to originally gripe over my method of presentation, but then found a need after I clarified the point to continue belaboring it. It's just tiresome.

So, I can't have my cake and eat it too? But you can? This is EXACTLY what I said to you, only the other way around. Should I respond as you did --- "In what universe am I having it both ways?"

THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT. I was pointing out the high irony and flaw in your logic. You created a straw man for me... forcing me to take a position I never came close to espousing originally in terms of evaluating how "well" someone played... and said straw man's logic that you were railing against being "bad" is precisely the logic you're using.

The difference is I don't think Tommy should be penalized for throwing a catchable ball. It's his job to put the ball in a position to be caught. If Tommy does his job and the WR makes a great catch then Tommy did his job. If Tommy does his job and the WR drops it then Tommy did his job. Why in the world (or universe) should I penalize him for throwing a completion?

Because this just isn't a logically consistent way of evaluating a QB's play. For example, you don't want him penalized for throwing a INT off a WR's hands. But if a QB throws a should be interception, it goes off the DB's hands and is completed for a TD, it should be a good throw because it was complete?

You have to choose whether or not you want to evaluate him based on production or play. Not both. You seem to want to evaluate him on play, so you cannot give him high marks for throwing jump balls or inaccurately such that they should be incomplete but he is bailed out by fantastic plays. Because if you're an actual objective scout, you would not be giving him high marks for these throws and saying he's throwing the ball "well"... you'd be saying these are bad throws.

This is such BS. See Rhode Irish's post above which you conveniently ignored. He does a great job explaining how the two discussions are one in the same. I'm not going to waste my time.

Yeah... it's not BS. It's just completely rational and destroys your straw man. My whole point in bringing up "bad" throws in his highlights was that someone should look like a God in highlights. It has nothing to do with my mantra on evaluating players. And I didn't ignore Rhode's post... I read it, it seemed legit, and it's not my civic duty to respond to every post on here. He also said: "I feel like..." and "I know you explicitly said you aren't saying that, but you still kind of are saying that."... so even if I did marginally disagree with his point of view... what exactly begs a response? It's just a reasonable, thought out opinion and presented as such.

I'm not interested in having this discussion. You're going to ignore the "bad" throws that were caught, the "good" throws that were dropped, the INT that wasn't his fault, the three FG drives he led, the conservative play calling that would have NEVER led to him throwing for 250 yards, etc. No thanks. You, and the rest of the people who rate QBs based on their fantasy numbers, can continue to think he had a bad game while me, and the rest of the people that actually understand stats rarely tell the whole story, will continue to believe he played well. We can agree to disagree and move on.

This is simply the most perfect ridiculous/straw man/parting shot ending to this discussion.

 

[ulukinatme]

Kids going to win the Heisman, Outland, Lombardi, Jewled Shillelagh, Red River Rivalry, Indy 500, NY Marathon and the Powerball Lotto next season! That's my bold prediction! Tommy and touchdown both start with T! T is the third letter in Notre! It's so obvious! Lets go Irish!

Are you kidding me....he's a long shot for the Powerball at best.

 

[ulukinatme]

I hope Tommy feeds off negativity and doubters. He probably could win the Heisman if he read this thread.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I watched that game again. I don't care about stats or anything...he simply did not play well that game. Didn't play as bad as people made it out to be (myself included) at the time, but he was just about average and needed a strong running game to save him. Kind of like what we will need this year.

But that stretch that you guys are arguing about...he was bad. Watch the game again and you'll see what I'm talking about. He played better in other spots, but in that stretch, he simply did not play well.

And Wooly, bro, Flutie was very athletic. I don't even think this is up for debate really. Forget stats...just watch him play. He would fly all over the place to create time and space for himself to throw. And if you want stats, he rushed for over 600 yds 5 times in the CFL (well over 700 twice). You ain't doing that if you aren't athletic, even if it is only the CFL. He was also a helluva basketball player in high school if I am recalling correctly.

Edit: I still think Tommy and the offense are going to surprise people this year. Not 12-0 good, but still, much better than people think. As people have stated, Rees is being pegged as someone who cannot improve, and that his sophomore year is what he is today. I think he'll be better...