Wilson or Ewers?

[JBinSD]

Zach Wilson is definitely better looking.

 

[Mach2]

Zach Wilson is definitely better looking.

Apparently, that's the milf consensus.

 

[Charlie Rivers]

THX Mach2!!!

 

[Charlie Rivers]

Two reasons, and I think that these are solid reasons to why I want Ewers to backup Tua: (1) he earned it over Wilson - enough said there, and (2) he is young, a rook, and if Ewers does became or QB of the future (not Wilson), I want him to grow by being thrown into the fire. I want to see how he handles himself in every defensive situation thrown his way and as early as possible! Then he will GROW into his prime sooner rather than later.

Are those good reasons...? Your thoughts?

 

[Ray R]

I think some of us who picked Wilson did so because it seems every QB that goes to the Jets looks bad AND Wilson showed flashes of good play while there. You’re right that he was overall a bad QB in New Jersey, but his skill set is undeniable. Also, who else would be the #2? Another 7rd rookie? No thanks. I’m hopeful that we may have found a diamond in Ewers, but I doubt he can beat out Wilson so soon.

I feel we currently have a potential "embarrassment" of riches in those two QBs.

I'm tough, I can take it. - LOL

 

[eMCee85]

Again, looking at only winning teams isn’t going to lead to anything real. And again, look at and compare Tua to other QB’s against the SAME TEAMS.

The winning teams only thing is lacking in context. One winning team could be 16-1 and one winning team could be 9-8. The 16-1 team could have the best defense in the league and the 9-8 team could have the 30th ranked defense. So, what if Joe Burrow played all the “winning” teams that had top 5-7 defenses and what if Herbert played all the “winning” teams with defenses ranked 20-27th? If Burrow had worse numbers against his teams is he somehow a worse QB than Herbert? Lol… The context matters. The media using only “winning teams” is lazy and misleading.

Dude I tried to stay out this conversation but did you really just say looking at tuas stats and records against winning teams doesn't lead to anything real? I've heard and seen a lot of dumb **** on this board but damn bro... haha

 

[Ray R]

Two reasons, and I think that these are solid reasons to why I want Ewers to backup Tua: (1) he earned it over Wilson - enough said there, and (2) he is young, a rook, and if Ewers does became or QB of the future (not Wilson), I want him to grow by being thrown into the fire. I want to see how he handles himself in every defensive situation thrown his way and as early as possible! Then he will GROW into his prime sooner rather than later.

Are those good reasons...? Your thoughts?

Throwing a QB into the "fire" is only justifiable if you have him prepared for it.

How do you do that?
Let him play a few reps late in a game to rest Tua up for a final "sprint" to win the game, or better yet - because we are 3 TDs ahead! - LOL

 

[Ray R]

ascending? well the hinderberg was ascending at one point too

It was the Hinderbergs' decent, not its ascent, that led to its big problem. - LOL

 

[phinsforlife]

Again, looking at only winning teams isn’t going to lead to anything real. And again, look at and compare Tua to other QB’s against the SAME TEAMS.

The winning teams only thing is lacking in context. One winning team could be 16-1 and one winning team could be 9-8. The 16-1 team could have the best defense in the league and the 9-8 team could have the 30th ranked defense. So, what if Joe Burrow played all the “winning” teams that had top 5-7 defenses and what if Herbert played all the “winning” teams with defenses ranked 20-27th? If Burrow had worse numbers against his teams is he somehow a worse QB than Herbert? Lol… The context matters. The media using only “winning teams” is lazy and misleading.

ohh tua nowhere to be found on this list. maybe he is ranked #200, in the vicinity of jamarcus russell? what "context" do these stats need?

 

[Mach2]

ohh tua nowhere to be found on this list. maybe he is ranked #200, in the vicinity of jamarcus russell? what "context" do these stats need?

Off the top of my head, number of actual opportunities would be helpful.

A guy that is only in a position to do so twice is quite different than one who has seven chances, for example.

Not saying that is, or isn't the case (and I don't care to spend the time researching), but that would add needed context.

Do you not agree with my premise?

 

[phinsforlife]

Off the top of my head, number of actual opportunities would be helpful.

A guy that is only in a position to do so twice is quite different than one who has seven chances, for example.

Not saying that is, or isn't the case (and I don't care to spend the time researching), but that would add needed context.

Do you not agree with my premise?

yes that is right. makes tua look even worse in this regard. some of those other QBs have had a lot of chances, and consistently performed. when the sample size is small, it is possible that it was just luck. kind of like huntley looking awesome in that one game last year. we know the sample size for players like brady and mahomes is huge, and to do it that well on a consistent basis, so many times, speaks volumes about why they are so highly thought of. we know from our eyeballs, tua has not come up big against better teams, when it really matters. in fact, it seems more often than not he has totally flopped. look at his relative performance, with the same players around him, his QB rating falls off the cliff against teams over .500 (he plays at less than a backup level), and he dominates the garbage teams, so his aggregate statistics are illusory. this is another way of cutting at the question. it seems challenging to argue, based on his career to date, that tua is a clutch QB. think of the end of 2023, when we needed it most at the end of the season, and how that looked for him.

 

[Mach2]

yes that is right. makes tua look even worse in this regard. some of those other QBs have had a lot of chances, and consistently performed. when the sample size is small, it is possible that it was just luck. kind of like huntley looking awesome in that one game last year. we know the sample size for players like brady and mahomes is huge, and to do it that well on a consistent basis, so many times, speaks volumes about why they are so highly thought of. we know from our eyeballs, tua has not come up big against better teams, when it really matters. in fact, it seems more often than not he has totally flopped. look at his relative performance, with the same players around him, his QB rating falls off the cliff against teams over .500 (he plays at less than a backup level), and he dominates the garbage teams, so his aggregate statistics are illusory. this is another way of cutting at the question. it seems challenging to argue, based on his career to date, that tua is a clutch QB. think of the end of 2023, when we needed it most at the end of the season, and how that looked for him.

You completely missed the point.

List the games where Tua was within one score and had the ball in the final 4 minutes. How many were there? You can cite the old eyeball test if you want, but I'm asking how many opportunities was he in that specific position? Without that, the total number is meaningless.

You were commenting about context in relation to the chart, not gut feelings. You asked what context was needed. I suggested one.

Stop moving the goal posts.

 

[phinsforlife]

You completely missed the point.

List the games where Tua was within one score and had the ball in the final 4 minutes. How many were there? You can cite the old eyeball test if you want, but I'm asking how many opportunities was he in that specific position? Without that, the total number is meaningless.

You were commenting about context in relation to the chart, not gut feelings. You asked what context was needed. I suggested one.

Stop moving the goal posts.

interesting. i make my best effort to answer your question based on how i interpreted the question, and i answered as politely and honestly as i could. in return i get a rant that ends in accusatory fashion about me moving the goalposts. the data in question is defined as follows, so i guess i retract my prior answer because i still do not fully understand the question or point relative to how the data is presented:

*ranked based on EPA/dropback, min 85 dropbacks

 

[Mach2]

interesting. i make my best effort to answer your question based on how i interpreted the question, and i answered as politely and honestly as i could. in return i get a rant that ends in accusatory fashion about me moving the goalposts. the data in question is defined as follows, so i guess i retract my prior answer because i still do not fully understand the question or point relative to how the data is presented:

*ranked based on EPA/dropback, min 85 dropbacks

It wasn't intended to be a rant. No offense was intended.

It's just that the discussion was about the context of empirical data. It seemed you moved away from data off in a different direction of "feelz" and "eyes".

I agree that data and stats need context. There was none in the tweeted chart. You asked what "context" was needed. I gave an example of needed context.

To me, that is moving the goalposts of a fairly specific exchange.

 

[phinsforlife]

It wasn't intended to be a rant. No offense was intended.

It's just that the discussion was about the context of empirical data. It seemed you moved away from data off in a different direction of "feelz" and "eyes".

I agree that data and stats need context. There was none in the tweeted chart. You asked what "context" was needed. I gave an example of needed context.

To me, that is moving the goalposts of a fairly specific exchange.

thx. the data set is epa/dropback over what appears to be a reasonable sample size. my point was the greats are considered great, because over a huge sample size and long period of time, they were good in clutch and late situations, including big games like playoff games and super bowls. if tua is nowhere on this list, which goes 42 players deep, it is tough to believe he is good in clutch and late situations. that happens to be consistent with what i have seen, especially against better teams in more important games (which is a bit exaggerated because often we are not even in those games so there is no clutch, sadly)!