CMike to start at RB vs. NYG?

[JoeKing]

Do you actually watch football or just look at who won? Right now, every QB except Ben Rothlisberger (75.3%) and Tony Romo (75%) have a lower completion percentage than Weeden (72%) and is 27th in interceptions despite playing most of the year. Any QB who we bring in, even if we traded for Tom Brady, he would almost certainly throw for a lower percentage and more ints, but this is not the reason Weeden sucks. He sucks, because he puts no pressure on a defense and they do not have to defend all parts of the field. He checks down and throws underneath a ton, which does not lead to more running room for the backs or one on ones for the recievers.

You don't know me so who the heck do you think you are talking to me with that tone of contempt? You were the one that first conceded the lower completion percentage and turnovers. If you don't like your own words used against you then don't say them. I've been watching this game since the seventies so, don't come at me with your BS unless you need to be schooled again. I can be as nice or as mean as I need to be, it's up to you. Make your move.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

You don't know me so who the heck do you think you are talking to me with that tone of contempt? You were the one that first conceded the lower completion percentage and turnovers. If you don't like your own words used against you then don't say them. I've been watching this game since the seventies so, don't come at me with your BS unless you need to be schooled again. I can be as nice or as mean as I need to be, it's up to you. Make your move.

I don't have a problem with you using any words against me, but to suggest that a QB replacing Weeden, who does not complete as high of a percentage as him (3rd in the league) or even turns the ball over as much (27th in interceptions) would automatically be less productive, shows that you may not know what you are watching. He literally is among the league leaders in that category

 

[JoeKing]

I don't have a problem with you using any words against me, but to suggest that a QB replacing Weeden, who does not complete as high of a percentage as him (3rd in the league) or even turns the ball over as much (27th in interceptions) would automatically be less productive, shows that you may not know what you are watching. He literally is among the league leaders in that category

I like Cassel over Weeden. You obviously missed my point. I wasn't knocking Cassel's stats, I was knocking your comment that despite a lower completion percentage and higher chance of turnover, he was somehow going to give us more production. Those things just don't add up.

I'm aware of Cassel's stats, they are a matter of public record.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I was knocking your comment that despite a lower completion percentage and higher chance of turnover, he was somehow going to give us more production. Those things just don't add up.

Again, almost inevitable that Cassel will not throw for 72% among his first 98 throws and very likely that he will throw more than 2 INTs during that span. But I'd be willing to bet that we get more production from the passing game, specifically in the first half.

 

[sureletsrace]

You don't know me so who the heck do you think you are talking to me with that tone of contempt? You were the one that first conceded the lower completion percentage and turnovers. If you don't like your own words used against you then don't say them. I've been watching this game since the seventies so, don't come at me with your BS unless you need to be schooled again. I can be as nice or as mean as I need to be, it's up to you. Make your move.

Offense 1: 1 fumble, 1 int, 60% completion %. 28 points scored.

Offense 2: 0 fumble, 0 int, 75% completion %. 3 points scored.

Which is the better offense? According to your logic, it's offense 2.

Yes, in a vacuum, high completion % and no turnovers are 2 (of many) keys to success. But we aren't in a vacuum. Taking risks in the game can lead to rewards.

Also, last I checked, we do have people on offense that can run the ball (Randle, McFadden, Michael) and catch the ball (Witten, Williams, Beasley, Street, Escobar, Hanna, Whitehead), if you want to be snarky and use technicalities.

 

[AKATheRake]

Looks like Michael to take the running downs and McFadden to be in on passing downs to block and catch out of the backfield.

Sounds good to me but we might be showing our hand a little bit if we can't keep CMike in on some 3rd downs or get some running yards for MacFadden.

Looks like Randle is in the dig house. Doesn't listen and doesn't block well enough.

 

[Nightman]

I like Cassel over Weeden. You obviously missed my point. I wasn't knocking Cassel's stats, I was knocking your comment that despite a lower completion percentage and higher chance of turnover, he was somehow going to give us more production. Those things just don't add up.

I'm aware of Cassel's stats, they are a matter of public record.

It is like the Laffer curve with taxes. At a certain point raising taxes no longer brings in more revenue because businesses and people adapt.

At some point being too conservative with the passing game will lead to less production. Two yard passes are completed at a very high percentage and with almost no risk of INTs but they don't lead to many points.

Or for another analogy, it would be like hitting .300 in baseball with a .600 OPS
versus someone else hitting .250 with a .850 OPS
The second batter hits at a much lower Batting Average but is a much, much better offensive player overall.

 

[JoeKing]

Offense 1: 1 fumble, 1 int, 60% completion %. 28 points scored.

Offense 2: 0 fumble, 0 int, 75% completion %. 3 points scored.

Which is the better offense? According to your logic, it's offense 2.

Yes, in a vacuum, high completion % and no turnovers are 2 (of many) keys to success. But we aren't in a vacuum. Taking risks in the game can lead to rewards.

Also, last I checked, we do have people on offense that can run the ball (Randle, McFadden, Michael) and catch the ball (Witten, Williams, Beasley, Street, Escobar, Hanna, Whitehead), if you want to be snarky and use technicalities.

Risk takers are ship sinkers until they can do so with a high percentage of success like Romo.

None of those names inspire confidence in the running game. So you're not making a very convincing argument there. Our running game sucks.

 

[JoeKing]

It is like the Laffer curve with taxes. At a certain point raising taxes no longer brings in more revenue because businesses and people adapt.

At some point being too conservative with the passing game will lead to less production. Two yard passes are completed at a very high percentage and with almost no risk of INTs but they don't lead to many points.

Or for another analogy, it would be like hitting .300 in baseball with a .600 OPS
versus someone else hitting .250 with a .850 OPS
The second batter hits at a much lower Batting Average but is a much, much better offensive player overall.

Preaching to the choir. I guess you missed my first sentence... "I like Cassel over Weeden".

 

[DTown214]

I feel like I'm the only one on this board who isn't obsessed with Christine Michael. Everyone here talks about him being our best back and how we should've been playing him all along. I hope he's the answer but damn... did y'all watch every handoff he took at A&M or what?

 

[Philmonroe]

I feel like I'm the only one on this board who isn't obsessed with Christine Michael. Everyone here talks about him being our best back and how we should've been playing him all along. I hope he's the answer but damn... did y'all watch every handoff he took at A&M or what?

You don't have to be but right now what can a change really do? That's how I look at it. All the talk from others is just that talk. Nobody will know until we see him get a real chance for a few games to see whats what.

 

[SportsGuru80]

Michael is that tough downhill runner we need that will explode through the hole with power... We miss those grind it out 4 and 5 yard runs that wear down teams!!!!

 

[sureletsrace]

Risk takers are ship sinkers until they can do so with a high percentage of success like Romo.

None of those names inspire confidence in the running game. So you're not making a very convincing argument there. Our running game sucks.

You never said anything about inspiring confidence until now. You said we have nobody to run or catch the ball.

We do have a first ballot Hall of Fame TE. Whitten or some such.

 

[Nightman]

Preaching to the choir. I guess you missed my first sentence... "I like Cassel over Weeden".

You said you didn't understand how less completions and more turnovers could lead to more production. Was just trying to give you some context.

 

[kevm3]

I don't see who is really proclaiming CM to be the ultimate runningback. People are excited because he brings a different look to the running game. We know what we have with Randle and McFadden. They are not every down backs, especially for the kind of offense we run.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

We do have a first ballot Hall of Fame TE. Whitten or some such.

He's no Michael Irving

 

[Zman5]

My expectation is that the passing will improve, the OL run blocking will improve, Hanna will return and improve the TE blocking which will all lead to improved running. C-Mike will benefit from all of these other improvements, but the C-Mike cult will claim that all improvement were due to C-Mike playing more snaps.

We only ran for 80 some yards against the Gints when everyone was healthy.
Gints are rated 2nd in rush defense only giving up 81 rushing yards per game.

Depending on how CMIke does against the Gints without Romo and Dez, we'll have a good idea what he brings to the our run game.

 

[mickswag]

He's no Michael Irving

Or Christine Michaels.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Or Christine Michaels.

yea, when the trade for him was announced I searched google for Christine Michaels to confirm...glad I wasn't at work

 

[JoeKing]

You never said anything about inspiring confidence until now. You said we have nobody to run or catch the ball.

We do have a first ballot Hall of Fame TE. Whitten or some such.

You never said those names until now so don't blame me for not saying they don't inspire confidence until now. When I said we have no one to run the ball or pass the ball to, I didn't mean that in a literal sense. I meant no one is having such a great season. Consistently moving the chains is a huge problem. Witten is not impressing anyone either.