Kerry Collins

[Nza]

Quote: Originally Posted by ShimSham

That tells you how much progress has been made. If he were progressing, he'd still be the starter. He wouldn't have some mediocre, old as hell QB starting in his place.

Not sure about that. The Titans were 10-0 with KC; you don't change what's working even if the extent of KC's involvement with that record is basically not throwing ints. It just wouldn't make sense. Besides, Vince probably wasn't making much progress during last season and by the time he may have been, it was too late to make a QB change.

And this offseason is far too young for VY to make any visible progress yet. From reports he has been far more active in the film room and what not so far. Not much else you can tell. Preseason will be a pretty significant time for Vince and his progress, although KC will still get the start week 1 regardless.

[RGiles36]

Quote: Originally Posted by Enigmatic52

I would think that common sense comes into play with this. If you have say Tom Brady as the backup to Peyton Manning. Brady's ratings shouldn't automatically take a dip because he is the back up. (This is what I'm sensing is the debate here) I think if you have a talented back up he will play with the talent he should. As for VY.... As a Titans Diehard fan. I personally want him to do well, but faith in him is so lost for so many. He has to really show he can play the position.

Exactly what I thought

[stux]

I hope there is significant drop off after the starter IF you don't have a really good backup. BUT there should also be some teams that don't have a good QB in the first place.

Any QB with a passer rating lower then 80 should be significantly worse the then one with a ratings over 95. This is assuming they threw over 150 passes so you really know they have some time in the game.

Looks at the stats:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...2&d-447263-n=1

Seneca Wallace had a better year last year then a lot of starters and should be rated such. Statistically he was playing just as well as Cutler or McNabb for the time he was in the game, he had about 40% of the attempts. Eli Manning and Schuan Hill also performed about the same level with passer ratings around 87.

Compare that to players like Russell 77, Bulger 71, and Orton 80.

There was only one player over 100.
four between 95-99.9 or over,
four between 90-94.9,
eight between 85-89.9,
seven between 80-84.9,
seven below 80

Now of course there are more things to looks at then just that such as: Post season play, yards, wins, fumbles, and rushing stats.

BUT there are a lot of starters no better then some teams backup or even worse. And a lot of this years rookies I think are over rated.

[JeriousNorwood]

The thing is lack of game tape as well. Running backs who teams have never seen the field before usually do pretty well in their first few appearances because teams haven't had time to game plan for them, such as the case of Tim Hightower. He was great when he first came in, but when teams started getting game tape on him, he quickly went downhill. So you have to take stats of players like Seneca Wallace with a grain of salt because he may not play that well over a whole season.

[stux]

Not to get in a debate but there was game film on him from 06 when he started 4 games. He played about a full game's worth in 05 and 07. I am pretty sure by last year most team's had a scouting report on him. It isn't like he has not played at all.

I think he has David Garrard as a starter. It isn't like this guy is my favorite player or anything.

My point wasn't Wallace but there are some backups out there better then starters on other teams AND not all starters should be rated as starters unless they have proved they can they should just have the potential.