Hutch's is getting better, but..... - Page 8 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

ChrisFul · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Your Hutch hate is showing.

1. Stoerner is not outplaying him.

2. 2-7 was all Hutchinson's fault, and 10-7 is all because of Carter, RIGHT!

3. You said let him show it in the NFL, I used a QB rating of 80 as a bench mark and gave you 3, including consectutive games.

You made an overblown statement and got called, deal with it.

Overblown? Give me a break.

Hutch SUCKED in 2002. Plain and simple.

2-7 with an offense nearly ranked dead last.

10-7 with a middle-of-the-pack offense. You tell me which performance is more impressive.

Stoerner has more yards and more TDs than Hutchinson, a higher YPA and a higher TD%. Stoerner has 88 passing 1st downs. Hutch has 67. The offense that stoerner directs (amsterdam) is a much more effective squad than Hutch's (rhein)

http://www.nfleurope.com/stats/2004/2004team_stats.html

Don't believe me, there they are.

Hutch has a nice completion %. That's about it.

blindzebra · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisFul

Which games were those?

The 300 yard game which we lost and he turned the ball over 3 times?

The game where he threw for 208 yards while leading us to a 9-7 defeat at the hands of the Lions?

The only game i can see where he played anything CLOSE to "well" was against the skins in week 13 of 2002, where he threw for 2 TDs and no ints. I dont recall any fumbles, though he WAS under 50% completion for that game.

That was the point.

You failed to make one.

Look no further than his final statline. Fairly poor, i might add. And now he's doing so-so in NFL Europe. What makes you think he's going to be successful in the NFL anytime soon?

We WON that 300 yard game and the next week as well.

I never said he was going to be successful, you however have made SEVERAL overblown to flat out incorrect statements, simply because you hate Hutchinson.

You know the EXACT same thing that you love to accuse people of doing to Carter.

dbair1967 · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra

We WON that 300 yard game and the next week as well.

I never said he was going to be successful, you however have made SEVERAL overblown to flat out incorrect statements, simply because you hate Hutchinson.

You know the EXACT same thing that you love to accuse people of doing to Carter.

yes, he (and others) do it constantly...then he (or they) denie they are doing it

David

aikemirv · 05-17-2004

So, if we turned this into comparing Hutch and QC, which is was not meant to do.

Do you really think that if the tables were turned, and QC was over in Europe, that he would be tearing up the league?

It is just a question, I want to know what you guys really think. Do you really believe he would be tearing it up?

I don't think he has the accuracy to tear it up over there.

Come on, lets be serious, they both have their deficiencies, we all know that.

Hutch has bad pocket prescense and fumbles and has not shown much mobility. QC is not very accurate and makes a lot of poor decisions and we are not sure if he can read the whole field.

HAve they both improved over where they were - I would say yes to both of them.

Are they going to be good or very good NFL QB's - from what we have seen so far you can not answer that question right now.

If you cant admit to that then you have some serious blinders on. This thread was started about whether Hutch has shown enough improvement over there to be given another shot in Dallas. I think he has shown improvement in his prescense and his holding on to the football. He is not where he should be, but improved.

I just think that shows that he can get better and should be brought into camp to compete.

ChrisFul · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbair1967

yes, he (and others) do it constantly...then he (or they) denie they are doing it

David

Yeah, i apologize for the slipup on the jax game, i forgot we won that one.

He and others do it constantly?

Hutch gives us so much ammo. He has a QB in front of him that is not a good qb, and he can't unseat him. Everytime he gets onto a football field he fumbles all over the place and holds on to the ball too long.

HE GOT SENT TO EUROPE FOR GODS SAKE. You think this guy is good? You think this guy is CLOSE to being good?

He can't beat a guy that has put up QB ratings in the low 70s the past two seasons and according to some is the worst QB ever. He got sent to EUROPE. His own coach said simply "He's not ready to lead an NFL team". What more do you want?

Sorry, but its game, set, match boys.

Bring Hutch into camp to compete, im all for it.

I can tell you how this is going to end up, however. If the Dallas Cowboys have a new starting QB this season, his name will be Vinny or Drew. It ain't gonna be "Hutch".

Hutch, if he can harnass that arm of his, can be a good nfl qb someday. Its just not going to be anytime soon.

ChrisFul · 05-17-2004

Its funny the length that some people will go to to justify away the fact that Hutch got sent to EUROPE. Say what you want about our current starter, but at least he's far enough along he didnt need to be sent to remedial football 101 like Hutch has. He may end up never being anything more than he is now, but dear god. Hutch couldn't defend his spot as the starter and then got sent packing to the minors. He's supposed to be a viable option as a starter next year? Give me a break. This isn't about "hate". It's about Common Sense.

Let's sum up these Hutch threads/posts.

The challenge was issued: "Hutch had good games"

The stats say otherwise. As does the win column. As do the offensive numbers as a whole. But oh yeah, i forgot. Stats lie.

The feeling is that Hutch is the "best passer" (hollywood).

The reality is he got SENT to europe to work on his game and is getting outplayed by other 2nd/3rd stringers.

The feeling is that Hutch will be afforded an opportunity to start.

The circumstances dictate otherwise.

Hostile · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisFul

I can tell you how this is going to end up, however. If the Dallas Cowboys have a new starting QB this season, his name will be Vinny or Drew.

I am still not sold on Vinny being the vet we bring in. It seems when the media thinks they have something figured out on what Parcells will do, it turns out they are dead wrong. They are convinced Vinny is a done deal. That has me thinking he isn't coming any time soon, or ever.

I could be wrong.

blindzebra · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisFul

Yeah, i apologize for the slipup on the jax game, i forgot we won that one.

He and others do it constantly?

Hutch gives us so much ammo. He has a QB in front of him that is not a good qb, and he can't unseat him. Everytime he gets onto a football field he fumbles all over the place and holds on to the ball too long.

HE GOT SENT TO EUROPE FOR GODS SAKE. You think this guy is good? You think this guy is CLOSE to being good?

He can't beat a guy that has put up QB ratings in the low 70s the past two seasons and according to some is the worst QB ever. He got sent to EUROPE. His own coach said simply "He's not ready to lead an NFL team". What more do you want?

Sorry, but its game, set, match boys.

Bring Hutch into camp to compete, im all for it.

[View Full Quote]

I for one would love to see both Hutch and Quincy gone for no other reason then to stop all the stupid debate.

It comes down to this; both started too soon, both lost their UNEARNED starting job too soon, neither has shown enough to EARN the level of support that they get from fans.

Both sides make excuses for their QB, but overlook the same excuse for the other side.

Sure Hutchinson could not beat out a QB with a 70 rating, but Carter did not win the job in a landslide either, over a QB that could not beat out a QB with a 70 rating.

It is all mindless, both could develop someday, but because how everything has been messed up from day one for both guys, it most likely won't happen in Dallas.

dbair1967 · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisFul

Which games were those?

The 300 yard game which we lost and he turned the ball over 3 times?

The game where he threw for 208 yards while leading us to a 9-7 defeat at the hands of the Lions?

The only game i can see where he played anything CLOSE to "well" was against the skins in week 13 of 2002, where he threw for 2 TDs and no ints. I dont recall any fumbles, though he WAS under 50% completion for that game.

That was the point.

You failed to make one.

Look no further than his final statline. Fairly poor, i might add. And now he's doing so-so in NFL Europe. What makes you think he's going to be successful in the NFL anytime soon?

please try to get your facts straight when making an argument, though I do notice that most who back Q at all costs rarely have the facts straight, and certainly are not consistent in their arguments

first, we won the game where Hutchinson threw for over 300 yds...we would have also won both the Detroit and Seattle games that Hutchinson QB'd had Darnay Scott and Ken Yon Rambo caught easy TD passes that went right through their hands (you know, the excuse some of you make for Q constantly about last yr)...5 out of Huthcinsons' 9 starts resulted in QB ratings over 71, and 4 of those were 76.2, 82.8, 102.8 and 92.9. By comparison Carter had only 6 such games out of 17...and everyone chastises Hutchinson for his fumbling problem, but Carter has fumbled 20 times (lost 8) in 31 starts, and several of those were when he wasnt even touched

I dont think Hutchinson will be our (or anyone's) starter in the NFL, but its amazing to me to see the constant hypocritical slants when it comes to Carter vs anyone (particularly Hutchinson) when in fact Carter is just as awful as they are...

for the record I dont think Hutchinson played "well" or "good" in 2002, but neither did Carter last yr...

it wont be long however till all this bickering ends, because Henson is going to put Carter where he belongs soon, on the bench

David

ChrisFul · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

I am still not sold on Vinny being the vet we bring in. It seems when the media thinks they have something figured out on what Parcells will do, it turns out they are dead wrong. They are convinced Vinny is a done deal. That has me thinking he isn't coming any time soon, or ever.

I could be wrong.

Well, you could use "Vinny" interchangably with any other vet QB option. Warner, Collins, whoever. The point still remains the same. Hutch isn't going to win a QB competition.

ChrisFul · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbair1967

please try to get your facts straight when making an argument, though I do notice that most who back Q at all costs rarely have the facts straight, and certainly are not consistent in their arguments

Nice slam. Where did I even mention Q? i didnt.

Quote:

first, we won the game where Hutchinson threw for over 300 yds...

Already corrected that.

Quote:

we would have also won both the Detroit and Seattle games that Hutchinson QB'd had Darnay Scott and Ken Yon Rambo caught easy TD passes that went right through their hands

Coulda shoulda woulda......the other side of the fence gets blamed for this, and you want some quarter afforded on the issue? Bottom line: HE DIDNT. Excuse it away as you wish.

Quote:

5 out of Huthcinsons' 9 starts resulted in QB ratings over 71, and 4 of those were 76.2, 82.8, 102.8 and 92.9.

And how many yards did he throw for? How many times did he fumble? QB rating doesnt take into account for fumbles, which are critical errors.

76.2 - Wk 17 vs. Wash - 1 INT, 2 fumbles.
82.8 - Wk 9 vs. Seattle - no ints or fumbles.
102.8 - Wk 12 vs. Jax - 2 INTs, 1 Fumble
92.9 - Wk 13 vs. Wash - No Ints or fumbles, under 50% accuracy.

Not to mention the fact that in only ONE of those weeks did Hutch threaten over 200 yards passing (not really that important tho) and in only ONE of those weeks did he pass for more than 55% accuracy. And these are "Good" games? Only weeks 9 and 13 would really classify as being "good".

Quote:

By comparison Carter had only 6 such games out of 17...and everyone chastises Hutchinson for his fumbling problem, but Carter has fumbled 20 times (lost 8) in 31 starts, and several of those were when he wasnt even touched

20 times in 31 starts. As opposed to 12 times in 9 starts. One fumbles less than once a game. The other fumbles MORE than once per game. Hutch has lost as many fumbles in his 9 games than the other guy did in 31 starts.

Quote:

I dont think Hutchinson will be our (or anyone's) starter in the NFL, but its amazing to me to see the constant hypocritical slants when it comes to Carter vs anyone (particularly Hutchinson) when in fact Carter is just as awful as they are...

As awful? Son, Hutchinson has played FAR worse. Look at the stats. They prove it. Fumbles. Turnovers. QB rating. Yardage. Yards per attempt. Overall passing offensive stats. Everything points to Hutch being the inferior QB. Parcells knew it. Thank god, too. I shudder to think how much worse our barely middle of the pack passing offense would be with Hutch at the helm.

dbair1967 · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisFul

Nice slam. Where did I even mention Q? i didnt.

Already corrected that.

Coulda shoulda woulda......the other side of the fence gets blamed for this, and you want some quarter afforded on the issue? Bottom line: HE DIDNT. Excuse it away as you wish.

And how many yards did he throw for? How many times did he fumble? QB rating doesnt take into account for fumbles, which are critical errors.

76.2 - Wk 17 vs. Wash - 1 INT, 2 fumbles.
82.8 - Wk 9 vs. Seattle - no ints or fumbles.
102.8 - Wk 12 vs. Jax - 2 INTs, 1 Fumble
92.9 - Wk 13 vs. Wash - No Ints or fumbles, under 50% accuracy.

[View Full Quote]

honestly it wouldnt have been much worse...if you think Carter is eons better than Hutch (or anyone) than your fooling yourself...Carter did do a decent job of avoiding some sacks that Hutchinson definitely would have taken, but from a passing numbers standpoint I dont see how you could possibly ASSertain that Hutchinson was FAR worse...your comparing chicken $hit to horse $****, it may look different and smell different, but its still $hit

David

Hostile · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisFul

Well, you could use "Vinny" interchangably with any other vet QB option. Warner, Collins, whoever. The point still remains the same. Hutch isn't going to win a QB competition.

I never said he could. I have long maintained he is a backup only.

junk · 05-17-2004

I really hope both Carter is gone soon so he can continue his journeyman career elsewhere. I am so sick of these threads trying to anoint him as some sort of future star. He just isn't all that good. QC has had three years and I see posts where people want to see what he will be able to do by year 4 or 5. If he was going to be anything, he would have showed something by now besides a penchant for throwing interceptions, falling apart in the clutch and an inability to read more than 1/2 of the field or perform against top defenses.

I don't think Hutch has what it takes either, but that shouldn't even have seen the field his rookie year. Or probably last year either. In reality, Hutch should have went to Europe right away.

Whats up with the double standard that Carter gets tons of chances and excuses, but everyone is ready to show Hutch the door even though he has had even less of a chance?

Brokejumper · 05-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by aikemirv

I have seen your argument before, but I just don't buy it...

Week15 vs Washington - we had 222 yds rushing- QC was 10/24 for 108 yds - 5 completions as dumpoff to Anderson - are you telling me they did not have 8 in the box to try to stop the run?

Week 14 vs Philly - we had 150 yds rushing - 15/24 for 93 yds - 7 comp to Anderson - none to WR - they had to be comitting 8 to the box in some instances.

From memory of the games, the vast majority of the time both teams sold out on the pass and that is why we were able to run. I am betting that if anyone has this on TIVO, we could find plays were they did come with 8 in the box, but I seem to remember actually watching for this and thinking that they were in fact going base seven on run almost the entire game. (If anyone actually is bored enough and has access to the tape to prove this one way or the other, please do!)