Tommy Rees talk (Fans only)

[raiseherGOLSONblue]

Why am i a troll i LOVE ND I just want Tommy Rees to start I never wanted all this I just wanted to talk to Tommy Rees fans.

There are no Tommy fans....only Zule....

 

[pkt77242]

Look at the yards per attempt between Jimmy and Tommy!!!

I am not saying that Rees is as good as Clausen (he isn't) but that you can't use the fact that Rees had good skill position players around him to pick him apart but then not hold it against him. Why can't anyone understand this simple point.

 

[Rees 4 Heisman]

So zule and me that makes two

 

[ThePiombino]

I am not saying that Rees is as good as Clausen (he isn't) but that you can't use the fact that Rees had good skill position players around him to pick him apart but then not hold it against him. Why can't anyone understand this simple point.

No one is picking him apart because he had skill around him. He's being picked apart because he is EXTREMELY physically limited and IS NOT THE ANSWER! (despite what you apologists want to belive)

 

[raiseherGOLSONblue]

So zule and me that makes two

Ghostbusters - There Is No Dana, Only ZUUL - YouTube

 

[pkt77242]

What do you want me to say? That Floyd and Tate weren't stud receivers? That Rudolph wasn't damn good himself? Obviously that's not the case. But the fact that you're even trying to compare Rees to Clausen is comical. Compare their QB stats if you want to make a comparison. Please, try to justify that.

Can you Read. I mean read and understand? I am not comparing them. I am making the point that you can't say Rees only completed 65.5% of his passes because he had Floyd and Eiffert because it is A) unprovable and B) stupid. And then you would have to take that into account for all QB's such as Clausen that had great skill position players around him and thus we would need to knock his stats down a little bit. It is just a bad arguement. Sigh.

 

[Rees 4 Heisman]

ZUUL seems like a nice guy to talk to, better then all these people calling me a troll.

 

[4irishnation]

I am not saying that Rees is as good as Clausen (he isn't) but that you can't use the fact that Rees had good skill position players around him to pick him apart but then not hold it against him. Why can't anyone understand this simple point.

I'm not holding it against him, but why can't you guys hold the turnovers against Tommy? You all are delusional if you can't understand that I want a QB that can move a little not fumble every time he gets hit and throws some of the worst interceptions at the absolute worst time. Why can't anyone understand this simple point!!!!!

 

[kmoose]

No one is picking him apart because he had skill around him. He's being picked apart because he is EXTREMELY physically limited and IS NOT THE ANSWER! (despite what you apologists want to belive)

That's a reasonable stance. However, comma...........

Who says he isn't the best of a group of non-answers. While Hendrix and Golson may not be physically limited, like Tommy, we have yet to see if they are mentally limited. Kelly's offense is incredibly complex for the quarterback. The QB has to read the defense, decide if the formation calls for a run or pass, then call out the proper protection, in a passing situation. One screw up there may negate the physical advantage that Hendrix and/or Golson gives you, if they get blindsided because they called the wrong protection.

 

[pkt77242]

No one is picking him apart because he had skill around him. He's being picked apart because he is EXTREMELY physically limited and IS NOT THE ANSWER! (despite what you apologists want to belive)

I don't think he is the answer (I want Golson to start next year) but I think that this year could have really gone to the shitter without him at certain points. I think he is a fair QB say 5-6 on a scale of 1-10. But that we needed him this year as Golson and Hendrix weren't ready and that he doens't get appreciated for what he did for us. No he won't be great, and no he isn't championship caliber but we needed him this year and he performed adequate for us.

 

[Grahambo]

 

[pkt77242]

I'm not holding it against him, but why can't you guys hold the turnovers against Tommy? You all are delusional if you can't understand that I want a QB that can move a little not fumble every time he gets hit and throws some of the worst interceptions at the absolute worst time. Why can't anyone understand this simple point!!!!!

See the post I just made and the one Kmoose made. The grass is always greener on the otherside.

 

[zbikowski88]

 

[ThePiombino]

Can you Read. I mean read and understand? I am not comparing them. I am making the point that you can't say Rees only completed 65.5% of his passes because he had Floyd and Eiffert because it is A) unprovable and B) stupid. And then you would have to take that into account for all QB's such as Clausen that had great skill position players around him and thus we would need to knock his stats down a little bit. It is just a bad arguement. Sigh.

Clausen attempted much more difficult throws than Rees. Reed was rarely asked to make those throws because of his physical limitations.

 

[General Colon Bowel]

You seem to like statistics, so here is a statistic of why I don't think Tommy should be our starting quarterback:
He accounted for 20 touchdowns and 19 turnovers (14 ints, 5 fumbles lost). Only one more td than turnover.

As for non statistics; he limits our offense with his immobility and arm strength. In a year where our running game and defense were better than they have been in years we went 8-5. Why? Clearly, because our quarterback play was limiting us.

Two 8-5 seasons in a row is the best two seasons we've strung together in a little while, so Rees is by no means a terrible qb. He is decent, not good, not bad. I think most people on this board just want a quarterback that has the same immense potential as the rest of the team.

 

[pkt77242]

Clausen attempted much more difficult throws than Rees. Reed was rarely asked to make those throws because of his physical limitations.

Jeez maybe you should slow down in your posting and collect your thoughts. Sarcasm.

I don't think you understand the arguement. The point is not to compare them the point was to disprove the arguement that Rees was only able to complete 65.5% of his passes because of who was around him.

 

[ThePiombino]

You seem to like statistics, so here is a statistic of why I don't think Tommy should be our starting quarterback:
He accounted for 20 touchdowns and 19 turnovers (14 ints, 5 fumbles lost). Only one more td than turnover.

As for non statistics; he limits our offense with his immobility and arm strength. In a year where our running game and defense were better than they have been in years we went 8-5. Why? Clearly, because our quarterback play was limiting us.

Two 8-5 seasons in a row is the best two seasons we've strung together in a little while, so Rees is by no means a terrible qb. He is decent, not good, not bad. I think most people on this board just want a quarterback that has the same immense potential as the rest of the team.

Well said.

 

[Rees 4 Heisman]

Hey guys you want to talk about the NFC championship maybe we wont fight as much.

 

[4irishnation]

See the post I just made and the one Kmoose made. The grass is always greener on the otherside.

Yes I have seen them and don't understand, you guys keep hedging your bets I'm done. Trust me Tommy will be in a red hat on the sidelines next year.

 

[pkt77242]

You seem to like statistics, so here is a statistic of why I don't think Tommy should be our starting quarterback:
He accounted for 20 touchdowns and 19 turnovers (14 ints, 5 fumbles lost). Only one more td than turnover.

As for non statistics; he limits our offense with his immobility and arm strength. In a year where our running game and defense were better than they have been in years we went 8-5. Why? Clearly, because our quarterback play was limiting us.

Two 8-5 seasons in a row is the best two seasons we've strung together in a little while, so Rees is by no means a terrible qb. He is decent, not good, not bad. I think most people on this board just want a quarterback that has the same immense potential as the rest of the team.

I agree with most of your post, but what if that lets go with immense potential ends up with us being 5-7 because potential doesn't mean that they can actually perform? Is that worth the risk? or would you rather have another 8-5 season? I want Golson to start but I understand the risk involved (it possibly going really pearshape and Kelly getting canned). Can Kelly take that risk? What if he starts Golson and he struggles and we go 5-7? Who takes the heat? Is his job then on the line, probably not this year but that would make 2013 a true make or break year.

 

[Rees 4 Heisman]

Ya he will when he needs a breather from playing so well.

 

[GreatGolson]

Guys! if we fight amongst ourselves it means the trolls win! can't we pull together and continue to soullessly heckle this troll?

 

[ThePiombino]

Jeez maybe you should slow down in your posting and collect your thoughts. Sarcasm.

I don't think you understand the arguement. The point is not to compare them the point was to disprove the arguement that Rees was only able to complete 65.5% of his passes because of who was around him.

No, but that IS the point. Clausen completed 68% of his passes in 2009 while attempting much more difficult throws than Rees did last year. Rees only completed as high as he did because of the level of difficulty of throws COMBINED with who he was throwing to most of the time. How do you not see this?

 

[GreatGolson]

Hey guys you want to talk about the NFC championship maybe we wont fight as much.

have you ever posted in an online forum before? I'm not trying to make fun of you, i am just honestly asking, if your new to this thing its ok, because you are coming off as a very ignorant n00b

 

[4irishnation]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uLZptx6UQLk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Rees 4 Heisman]

Not a troll, dont know how many times i have to state this but whatever

 

[raiseherGOLSONblue]

Ya he will when he needs a breather from playing so well.

lol I like that...confidence

 

[Rees 4 Heisman]

Yes i am new i thought it would be fun but i guess being a n00b is better then being a troll but it dosent change the fact i like Tommy Ress

 

[pkt77242]

No, but that IS the point. Clausen completed 68% of his passes in 2009 while attempting much more difficult throws than Rees did last year. Rees only completed as high as he did because of the level of difficulty of throws COMBINED with who he was throwing to most of the time. How do you not see this?

Sigh there is no point in argueing with you. I wasn't making the point to compare them but you can keep doing that if it makes you feel better.

 

[General Colon Bowel]

I agree with most of your post, but what if that lets go with immense potential ends up with us being 5-7 because potential doesn't mean that they can actually perform? Is that worth the risk? or would you rather have another 8-5 season? I want Golson to start but I understand the risk involved (it possibly going really pearshape and Kelly getting canned). Can Kelly take that risk? What if he starts Golson and he struggles and we go 5-7? Who takes the heat? Is his job then on the line, probably not this year but that would make 2013 a true make or break year.

I just think (and this is only my opinion) that our ceiling with Rees is more 8-5, possibly 9-4 years. If Rees starts next year, then he's gotta start in 2013 too right? So I feel like now is the time to change quarterbacks because even if we go through a rough year next year at the qb position, it will be worth it to get someone with more potential than Rees some game experience. Also, I'm of the opinion that we go at worst 8-5 next year with whoever at qb. I'm hoping for Golson.