SI has McNair pegged

[Mista T]

Just like many of us who have been watching pro football QBs for over 40 years, Sports Illustrated provides a non-homer assessment. Read Sports Illustrated (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7033282) comments on McNair:


A great group of receivers hidden by a quarterback losing his arm strength and pocket dexterity. While neither Derrick Mason nor Mark Clayton had spectacular statistics last season, the offensive scheme they played in, and Steve McNair's quickness to check down caused some deflation in their numbers as opposed to their actual talent level.

.... when a pro QB starts to lose talent after getting beaten up, often injured, aged, and loses his arm strength... it's time to hang 'em up!:laugh:

[jonboy79]

Who knew that post was coming next???

I actually took him off ignore as the fact that anyone can be so concerned with another person of the same sex is as intersing as a train wreck... So the question is, is Tex Chris Redman's Gay lover or did Kyle turn him down years ago??

[evade6317]

Wow, someone is basically cheering that our starting QB is getting worse. It's as if he wants McNair to fail.

I checked the same website for their un-biased view on Boller and here's what I got The NFLs Top 25 QB Busts (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6620150). Looks like they have Boller pegged as well.
I mean I know some of you can't stand the idea of McNair looking competant where Boller looked lost, but give the man some respect for getting this team to the best record in team history.

[Mista T]

give the man some respect for getting this team to the best record in team history.

Adalius Thomas and the other 10 members of the NFL's#1 Defense had a lot more to do with the Ravens 13-3 record than the 83.2 rated average QB, who slid to a 49.9 postseason rating that cost the team its season.

Yes, I will be happy when this weak-armed, aged average QB who can't perform in the big games actually retires, to open up some cap space so we can try again to obtain or develop a good young QB in here.

[evade6317]

Adalius Thomas and the other 10 members of the NFL's#1 Defense had a lot more to do with the Ravens 13-3 record than the 83.2 rated average QB, who slid to a 49.9 postseason rating that cost the team its season.

Yes, I will be happy when this weak-armed, aged average QB who can't perform in the big games actually retires, to open up some cap space so we can try again to obtain or develop a good young QB in here.

Just be honest. You want Boller to start over McNair and you will exploit any bad press that can help your fantasy come to reality.

McNair is the best option on the team and he wouldn't be here if your favorite player hadn't warranted the McNair trade, and the attempt to trade up to draft Brady Quinn.

McNair isn't the long tern answer, no one will argue that, but neither is Boller and his career 71 rating. However, McNair is the best option right now and only a serious Boller hugger would deny that.

[Mista T]

Just be honest. You want Boller to start over McNair and you will exploit any bad press that can help your fantasy come to reality.

Not really. I would just like to see better use of the finite cap budget. The Ravens committed $33 million for an average, declining QB. For a little bit more per year, we could have gone after a significant upgrade i.e. Drew Brees. Or saved the $$$, started Boller (who has developed into an average QB himself), and spent the money on Adalius Thomas, Suggs, etc.



McNair is the best option on the team and he wouldn't be here if your favorite player hadn't warranted the McNair trade, and the attempt to trade up to draft Brady Quinn.

Since that was total nonsense, you don't get a response. FYI: Brady Quinn was a junior in college when the FO made the mistake of trading for McNair.

As to my "favorite player", I root for the team, not individuals -- it's a team sport. But, if I did, he would be on the Defense.




McNair isn't the long tern answer, no one will argue that, but neither is Boller and his career 71 rating. However, McNair is the best option right now and only a serious Boller hugger would deny that.

McNair is the best option only as long as we are still stuck with him on the payroll, he's been given plenty of rest (preferable play him once every 3 weeks to rest his weak arm) and kept out of night games and playoff games.

Funny how some of the serious Boller haters focus on Boller's total career stats, including a couple wasted seasons when he was prematurely thrown into action, instead of objectively considering his upward trend. In four of his last five games, he played as well as anyone in the league except perhaps Manning, Brady, McNabb. And, while looking at ratings, where did the rapidly declining Steve McNair rank? 14th - just above such NFL "superstars" as David Carr and David Garrard. And that doesn't even count McNair's horrific 49.9 playoff rating.

As the your "hugger" comment - what's funny is that I was strongly opposed to playing Boller in 2003/2004, prefering that the Ravens acquire a vet instead. Or an up & coming backup. esp. Delhomme. And, if the Ravens were to be so smart or lucky to acquire or develop a truly good QB, I could care less about playing Boller.

[Greg]

There is nothing better than a beautiful woman except possibly a beautiful TD pass by the Ravens.
Dude, YOU have YOUR priorities mixed up, or you indeed are gay.


Too bad Boller isn't more consistent at throwing TD passes than he is at getting beautiful women. He seems to have it backwards as far as his professional football career goes. As much as I disliked Joe Namath at least he was a player on the field as well as off! Same can't be said of Bollerboy.

More proof you are more talk than knowledge. Namath was the most over-rated hack to ever toss a pigskin. He won one game and made a name for himself.

His lifetime QB rating, 65.5.
Year | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT
TOTAL | 140 | 1886 3762 50.1 27663 7.4 173 220

[dbcw]

To be fair to McNair, this upcoming season is going to be his first with the Ravens in which he will have an entire off-season to practice with the offense and to understand the scheme better.

You don't need to have a strong arm to win games. Both Pennington and Garcia have won playoff games with "popcorn" arms. In my opinion, arm strength is not nearly as important as accuracy. Just like marksmanship, it doesn't matter how fast the bullet is traveling if it misses the target. McNair has decent accuracy. And when compared to his back up, he has great accuracy.

[Greg]

You wish to discount Boller's entire horrid body of work ...
Woah there, Namath fan, you aren't going anywhere until you acknowledge that Namath's 65.5 career rating is less than Boller's and less than every single Boller season.

[festivus]

Woah there, Namath fan, you aren't going anywhere until you acknowledge that Namath's 65.5 career rating is less than Boller's and less than every single Boller season.

Um, Greg, Tex is not bound by traditional modes of debate such as reading other people's points of view. Or acknowledging others when they make valid points.

But I think your post was great, so can I acknowledge it for him?

[Greg]

And despite all of that Boller statistically is a better QB.

Your whole post was one gigantic attempted punt, and you shanked that baby for net 3 yards.

[evade6317]

To be fair to McNair, this upcoming season is going to be his first with the Ravens in which he will have an entire off-season to practice with the offense and to understand the scheme better.

You don't need to have a strong arm to win games. Both Pennington and Garcia have won playoff games with "popcorn" arms. In my opinion, arm strength is not nearly as important as accuracy. Just like marksmanship, it doesn't matter how fast the bullet is traveling if it misses the target. McNair has decent accuracy. And when compared to his back up, he has great accuracy.

Damn skippy!!! Anyone attempting to discredit McNair in favor of Boller is clearly biased. There is no way Boller wins against the Colts and there is no way the team goes 13-3 with Boller as the starter. It doesn't happen.

If McNair starts to look like Boller this upcoming season, as in completely lost, then I can see an argument in favor of Boller or even Smith. But chances of that happening are slim to none.

Boller has improved, but he was at home, and he's still not better than McNair.

[elland]

Boller is neither promising nor rookie. If anyone remember his last match.. it was actually Boller when he is at best.. a promising rookie.
And he played good, and he fumbled, and he went 3 and out, and finally he did beat the Browns.

The difference between McNair and Boller is turnovers, sacks and fumbles. And I guess if our D had the choice between those... well.

[elland]

And that Browns game... The only exiting thing in that game was Boller, could he, did he dare.. By the way in no match last year including the colts game I had the same sensation with McNair.

[Baltoman07]

Yes He Did!!!!!!!

[Capt. Atari]

I love these kind of threads. I don't know why? Anyway SI has hit upon something thats pretty obvious. McNair is not what he was say 5 yrs ago. It's plain to see that. We saw it last season. He has his moments but time and wear and tear are catching up with him. It will start to affect the play calling eventually. If teams figure out that we have no consistent deep threat during the season our offense will be at a severe disadvantage. McNair's head and heart will win games for us but his arm could lose us few as well.

Boller on the other hand has youth on his side. Whether you like him or not the boy throws a pretty good deep ball when he has time pass. It's something defenses will have to respect when he comes in to the game. With consistent protection he is no worse than the average other starter in the NFL. I'm not saying that he's a better QB than McNair but given our current situation I don't see a significant drop off in performance when he's in the game. Bottom line Boller has been the starter and has spent
a year learning behind one of the best QB's in the NFL over the last 10yrs or so, to say he couldn't lead this team in it's current state to a winning record is silly.


This will be the last season the Ravens will have the luxury of having 2 starter caliber QB's. The good thing right now is there is enough talent in this starting offense that the average NFL QB should have some success. We don't need the second coming of Unitas to get to the Superbowl. IF the O-line keeps improving and the running game improves this team is a lock to go deep in the playoffs.
What we need is someone to manage the game and when the opportunities present themselves down field, be able to deliver the ball. At the moment either McNair or Boller will do.

[evade6317]

Sorry Capt. Atari, Boller doesn't have it. His deep ball is hit or miss just like his ability to perform during a game. His career in both college and the NFL has been mostly miss. Given his trend of failure, how could anyone honestly believe that he is going to turn it around and carry an offense?

There's no way I put the team's Super Bowl hopes on the inconsitancy of Kyle Boller.

[RockyMRaven]

McNair on one leg with his left arm tied behind his back would still be a better NFL QB than Kyle Blunderboy Boller.

Oh yeah, Tex. I was at the Denver game. I saw it first-hand. McNair SUCKED bigtime. No way we should have lost that game. All the talking and writing about how it was a poor call to throw to Moore at the end of the first half was just an excuse for the fact that the play was very poorly executed by the quarterback. And the quarterback was NOT Boller. That loss was on McNair. And what about the "comeback" games? Yes, I was glad that we pulled them out, but they only had to be comebacks because McNair and the offense sucked so bad in the first half.

The game against the Panthers was going down the same road. No passion or spark from the offense. Then McNair got injured. Boller had his problems, but he nearly won the game for us.

The Colts game was an unmitigated disaster. McNair could not seem to get anything going, and was unable to lead the offense and to inspire them to do something great, with the whole season on the line. The offense needed a spark and he couldn't provide it. Boller turns the ball over? Well your great McNair certainly managed to do that too. Judging from how you usually write, I guess that was Boller's fault too.

So while I am really hoping that McNair makes a tremendous improvement this year, and takes us to the Super Bowl, I certainly see what Mr T is getting at. You would really do us all a favor if you would just stop your vicious attacks on Boller and be a bit more objective in your arguments.

[Capt. Atari]

McNair on one leg with his left arm tied behind his back would still be a better NFL QB than Kyle Blunderboy Boller.

Oh yeah, Tex. I was at the Denver game. I saw it first-hand. McNair SUCKED bigtime. No way we should have lost that game. All the talking and writing about how it was a poor call to throw to Moore at the end of the first half was just an excuse for the fact that the play was very poorly executed by the quarterback. And the quarterback was NOT Boller. That loss was on McNair. And what about the "comeback" games? Yes, I was glad that we pulled them out, but they only had to be comebacks because McNair and the offense sucked so bad in the first half.

The game against the Panthers was going down the same road. No passion or spark from the offense. Then McNair got injured. Boller had his problems, but he nearly won the game for us.

The Colts game was an unmitigated disaster. McNair could not seem to get anything going, and was unable to lead the offense and to inspire them to do something great, with the whole season on the line. The offense needed a spark and he couldn't provide it. Boller turns the ball over? Well your great McNair certainly managed to do that too. Judging from how you usually write, I guess that was Boller's fault too.

So while I am really hoping that McNair makes a tremendous improvement this year, and takes us to the Super Bowl, I certainly see what Mr T is getting at. You would really do us all a favor if you would just stop your vicious attacks on Boller and be a bit more objective in your arguments.

And there you have it. Boller's biggest problems aren't on the field they're in the stands.
McNair's greatest asset is that he is not Kyle Boller. His moments of poor play are ignored or glossed over by most fans. Especially the Boller Haters.


I was listening to the Vagina dialogs on WJFK 1300am last week and the topic of discussion we keep Boller or let him go next year. Most of the calls that were anti-boller were steeped more in emotion than reality. This led Anita Marks to conclude that Boller should move on because he'll never get a fair shake here. I would hope the Ravens front office would base their player decisions on football stats and performance and not the fickle fans.

[evade6317]

And there you have it. Boller's biggest problems aren't on the field they're in the stands.
McNair's greatest asset is that he is not Kyle Boller. His moments of poor play are ignored or glossed over by most fans. Especially the Boller Haters.


I was listening to the Vagina dialogs on WJFK 1300am last week and the topic of discussion we keep Boller or let him go next year. Most of the calls that were anti-boller were steeped more in emotion than reality. This led Anita Marks to conclude that Boller should move on because he'll never get a fair shake here. I would hope the Ravens front office would base their player decisions on football stats and performance and not the fickle fans.

Here's reality for you. McNair has a record of good play and moments of poor play. Boller has a record of poor play and moments of good play.

Would you bet the Raven's SB chances this year on Boller's ability at QB?

Didn't think so.

[CDiPiranha]

Greg,

I know that this isn't my battle, but for you to use ANY quarterback stats and actually try to compare them to QBs that are playing "post-Bill Walsh" shows either your age or perhaps your understanding of the NFL before 1978 & since 1978.

Namath indeed has some stats that wouldn't get him in the Hall today -- but so do many older QBs that played prior to rule changes and the advent of the West Coast offense.

The game of football is LIGHT YEARS DIFFERENT from the game Namath played in the 60s -- or that a guy like Bradshaw or Griese played in the 70s.

To try and compare a player like Namath to Boller BY USING STATS is beyond belief my friend!

.02 fromC DiP

[Greg]

CD, QB rating, which is based on completion percentage, TD to INT ratio and yards per attempt isn't something that would change much. Yards per attempt you might be able to make a case for.

For example, Unitas has a 7802 career rating, but it is completely crushed by a poor last 6 seasons. If we take those out we get a rating of 82.9. That is quite comparable to today's most successful QBs. Marino's lifetime rating was around 86. Namath's lifetime rating was still low, even adjusting for the times. He is 5 points under Boller, while Marino is less than 4 better than Unitas' prime years when the rules were the toughest.

If anything, Namath was about as good as Boller.

[CDiPiranha]

CD, QB rating, which is based on completion percentage, TD to INT ratio and yards per attempt isn't something that would change much. Yards per attempt you might be able to make a case for.

For example, Unitas has a 7802 career rating, but it is completely crushed by a poor last 6 seasons. If we take those out we get a rating of 82.9. That is quite comparable to today's most successful QBs. Marino's lifetime rating was around 86. Namath's lifetime rating was still low, even adjusting for the times. He is 5 points under Boller, while Marino is less than 4 better than Unitas' prime years when the rules were the toughest.

If anything, Namath was about as good as Boller.
Greg,

again, your reply speaks to you not fully realizing how the game is FAR DIFFERENT today than it was prior to the rule changes in the late 70s as well as the advent of the West Coast offense.

You compare Johnny U's "QB rating" (which is as B.S. a stat as I've ever seen) to Dan Marino to prove your comparison has merit??

Johnny U is considered one of the greatest to ever play...

try comparing his "QB rating" to someone like Joe Montana or Steve Young -- that should give you some inkling of how "uneven" comparing across eras is.

You're seriously talking about TWO DIFFERENT GAMES when you compare guys from the 60s/70s with guys who have played in recent times.

Do you realize that prior to the rule changes (which are known as the "Mel Blount" rule change) receivers were allowed to be bumped and re-routed ALL OVER THE FIELD UNTIL THE BALL WAS IN THE AIR?!

DO YOU REALIZE THIS?!

Now, think about how a receiver being bumped by the corner, LB and anyone else he comes in contact with on a pass-pattern would adversely affect passing precision, timing, completion percentages etc.

Making the statement you made (Namath to Boller) and the stance that you believe in says to me that you actually haven't seen the older players in action, or perhaps you're a Boller-guy with clouded judgment.

Do you realize that prior to Bill Walsh, most QB drops were 7-step or more, and some QBs DIDN'T HAVE REGIMENTED STEPS in their pass-drops (they just dropped back til they felt comfortable)! Again, go back and look at footage of older QBs and the game that they played in -- you're comparing apples & oranges my friend.

QBs in the 60s & 70s RARELY had completion percentages comparable to the accepted percentages of QBs in today's game -- that's mainly due to the precision brought about by Bill Walsh as well as the rule changes that have made passing more of the focalpoint in today's game (teams in the old days were run-first teams primarily).

Look at the stats compiled over 12 & 14-gm seasons by 1960s/1970s QBs and parallel them to today's QBs...

if you do this HONESTLY, then you'll see clearly where your comparison has erred.

.02 fromC DiP

[Rex Thunder]

Wow, someone is basically cheering that our starting QB is getting worse. It's as if he wants McNair to fail.

I checked the same website for their un-biased view on Boller and here's what I got The NFLs Top 25 QB Busts (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6620150). Looks like they have Boller pegged as well.
I mean I know some of you can't stand the idea of McNair looking competant where Boller looked lost, but give the man some respect for getting this team to the best record in team history.

So I guess Rex Grossman was the reason the Bears reached the Superbowl too? Who cares what our record was when it comes to our starting quarterback. McNair was a factor- but he wasn't THE reason. I am a Steve Mcnair fan- but for as much as your over-emphasize anything that supports your bashing of Boller- you DE-emphasize any negatives against McNair. YOur arguments are completely biased, and therefore weak.

As far as the top 25 SI Busts- it did say the jury is still out- and I believe Boller will start again in the NFL somewhere, and have a solid career.

[Rex Thunder]

Greg,

again, your reply speaks to you not fully realizing how the game is FAR DIFFERENT today than it was prior to the rule changes in the late 70s as well as the advent of the West Coast offense.

You compare Johnny U's "QB rating" (which is as B.S. a stat as I've ever seen) to Dan Marino to prove your comparison has merit??

Johnny U is considered one of the greatest to ever play...

try comparing his "QB rating" to someone like Joe Montana or Steve Young -- that should give you some inkling of how "uneven" comparing across eras is.

You're seriously talking about TWO DIFFERENT GAMES when you compare guys from the 60s/70s with guys who have played in recent times.

Do you realize that prior to the rule changes (which are known as the "Mel Blount" rule change) receivers were allowed to be bumped and re-routed ALL OVER THE FIELD UNTIL THE BALL WAS IN THE AIR?!

DO YOU REALIZE THIS?!

Now, think about how a receiver being bumped by the corner, LB and anyone else he comes in contact with on a pass-pattern would adversely affect passing precision, timing, completion percentages etc.

Making the statement you made (Namath to Boller) and the stance that you believe in says to me that you actually haven't seen the older players in action, or perhaps you're a Boller-guy with clouded judgment.

Do you realize that prior to Bill Walsh, most QB drops were 7-step or more, and some QBs DIDN'T HAVE REGIMENTED STEPS in their pass-drops (they just dropped back til they felt comfortable)! Again, go back and look at footage of older QBs and the game that they played in -- you're comparing apples & oranges my friend.

QBs in the 60s & 70s RARELY had completion percentages comparable to the accepted percentages of QBs in today's game -- that's mainly due to the precision brought about by Bill Walsh as well as the rule changes that have made passing more of the focalpoint in today's game (teams in the old days were run-first teams primarily).

Look at the stats compiled over 12 & 14-gm seasons by 1960s/1970s QBs and parallel them to today's QBs...

if you do this HONESTLY, then you'll see clearly where your comparison has erred.

.02 fromC DiP

Actually- HE WAS making adjusments for the times... I specifically saw him write "even when the rules were the toughest," AND "adjusting for the times."

I read his point as this- Marino's lead over Unitas (assuming they were comparably top qbs of their era)- was around 4 or 5 percentage points- THE SAME number separating Boller and Namath. So if Marino is 4 to 5 points higher than Unitas- but in a different era- than 4 to 5 points can be the adjustable number given to qbs of different eras... Meaning- If Namath was a 74, add 5 to m ake him a 79 in this era...

Whether he is correct or not is another story.. but you jumped the gun attacking the man's intelligence of that era of football- when if you had read closer- you may have seen that he had thought about it, at least some...

[Greg]

DO YOU REALIZE THIS?!
Yes, I realize plenty, thanks for a lengthy post on stuff I know.

Thanks, Rex, for seeing the adjustment.

Montana and Rice played in a WCO that is clearly different. The stats generated in that offensive scheme are going to skew ratings. Marino played in an offense much more comparable to what Unitas and Namath played in. Should I put in large caps asking if you realize who the HC was for Marino and Unitas for much of their careers? Thus, they had similar offenses. And of course Namath's HC Weeb Ewbank had some ties to Unitas as well. I don't know, maybe I don't realize nearly as much as I think I do.

[CDiPiranha]

Yes, I realize plenty, thanks for a lengthy post on stuff I know.

Thanks, Rex, for seeing the adjustment.

Montana and Rice played in a WCO that is clearly different. The stats generated in that offensive scheme are going to skew ratings. Marino played in an offense much more comparable to what Unitas and Namath played in. Should I put in large caps asking if you realize who the HC was for Marino and Unitas for much of their careers? Thus, they had similar offenses. And of course Namath's HC Weeb Ewbank had some ties to Unitas as well. I don't know, maybe I don't realize nearly as much as I think I do.
Greg,

I want to see if I've got everything straight before I post my response.

Your original comparison was Namath to Boller, lets not forget that. You used "QB ratings" to justify the comparison. I then jumped in, stating that using that rating system to compare QBs prior to Bill Walsh & the rule changes to QBs playing after that is flawed.

After that, your counter was my theory is incorrect. Your reasoning was that QB ratings take into consideration aspects that should cross the boundaries of eras (like completion percentages, TD & INT ratios). You then stated Unitas' QB rating as being in the same ballpark as Dan Marino, to show that great QBs in different eras can have relatively similar QB ratings.

Hopefully I've got all of that correct -- if I don't, then I've missed something in translation and apologize.

Then, in my last reply I again tried to explain the difference of yesteryear's game to today's, showing you ALL of the changes in the way QBs & coaches approach the game, showing you how all of quarterbacking has gone to precision, timing, shorter/quicker QB pass-drops, better completion percentages amongst NFL QBs (because of Bill Walsh influences on the NFL AND because of the rule changes that made passing more feasible), more regimented footwork by QBs and receivers etc and your reply was...

"Montana... played in a WCO offense that is CLEARLY DIFFERENT".

Do you realize that almost ALL of the NFL offensive coordinators & QBs in today's game run variants of the WCO?

Everyone runs a basic 5-step precision passing offense in the NFL today -- in Namath's day, THAT WASN'T THE CASE. Everyone runs a full stable of quik slants, shallow crossing routes etc (pass routes designed to get open quickly and precision-timed to coincide with the 3-step & 5-step QB drops of today) -- in Namath's day, wideouts ran noticeably deeper routes and the pass-plays were slower to develop.

The statistical proof of what I'm saying is in the noticeable improvement of pass completion percentages of QBs and at the same time the noticeable decrease of yards-per-catch of wideouts & receivers in the modern-day game...

that's the biggest tell-tale sign (statistically) of the change of today's game compared to the guys in Namath's era...

and those statistical changes DRASTICALLY CHANGE the QB ratings (which I personally still believe is as B.S. a stat in evaluation as is in the league).

Simply put Greg, the game was different back then.

Marino played in an offense much more comparable to what Unitas and Namath played in. Should I put in large caps asking if you realize who the HC was for Marino and Unitas for much of their careers? Thus, they had similar offenses.

Marino did indeed play in a passing offense, and his offense spans the 80s & 90s, but the game Marino played was more the exception to today's game, not the rule. Realize also that even though Marino shared Don Shula with Johnny U, that in itself means little as it compares to the offenses (or offensive philosophy) that each player ran.

Johnny U had his own offensive philosophy prior to Shula taking the helm, while Marino ran an offense specifically tailored to him -- also taking into account the rule changes aided to assist the NFL passing game. If you think that is still not correct, notice the type of offense Shula exhibited (both in philosophy as well as in passing strategy) when he actually won SuperBowls in Miami with HOFer Bob Griese at the helm -- and compare that to the offenses and passing philosophy of Dan Marino or Johnny U.

The reason that Bill Walsh is sooo revered by NFL folk is because his philosophy changed the way all passing offenses are run in the modern game -- and that includes Kyle Boller and the Ravens' offense (of which Billick is a disciple).

Greg, you may not agree, but the game is honestly SO DIFFERENT from the game played prior to the Mel Blount rule & Bill Walsh, it really isn't a valid comparison to compare the statistics of those before that era with those who've played in the latest era.

We can agree to disagree -- we're still purple buddy!

.02 fromC DiP

[Baltoman07]

Can anyone look up Joe Namaths stats from Superbowl III? Particulary I'd like to know his att/comp in the second half of that game. I think they took the ball out of of Namaths hands completely. Odd to be afraid to pass the ball when you have such a "great" QB as Namath. Or perhaps they knew he was all hype like so many players that play for New York teams.

[CDiPiranha]

Baltoman,

I don't know the particular stats of games w/Joe Namath, but understand that NOBODY took the ball out of his hands except himself. Back in those days quarterbacks CALLED THEIR OWN PLAYS -- which further shows the difference in the game of yesteryear and today's game.

Believe me, I'm not here to argue Namath's greatness or whatever, my injection into this whole ordeal was someone trying to compare old QBs with new QBs based solely on a statistical rating system, when there have been too many variables in the game of football that have changed since then.

Balto, Joe Namath may've been a gunslinger & such, but in his prime he was DEFINITELY not a "hyped" player. Joe had monster issues with his knees and took a beating with the Jets, but he really put up some strong passing stats early in his prime (relatively speaking).

C DiP

[Greg]

Namath was a career 50% passer (his best year was 52.9%), that isn't good in any era. He did throw for a lot of yards in the wide open AFL, once he started playing teams with defenses he was never good again. He also rarely threw for more TDs than INTs, again, not good for any era. He threw for a lot of yards without regard for ball safety. Somebody figured out that turnovers were the stat that most indicated wins over losses and the emphasis on ball security came into being.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/NamaJo00.htm

The thing that keeps his rating low is the very high amount of INTs he threw, which is not because of the era. It's because he threw the ball around without regard to ball security. That's why he didn't win very many games.

Namath actually had a good game in Super Bowl III, going 17 of 28 for 206 yards with no TDs or INTs.

[Capt. Atari]

Here's reality for you. McNair has a record of good play and moments of poor play. Boller has a record of poor play and moments of good play.

Would you bet the Raven's SB chances this year on Boller's ability at QB?

Didn't think so.

I would bet our SB chances on Boller and So has the Ravens front office because Boller is the backup and Given McNair's age and wear and tear YOU MAY SEE BOLLER STARTING @ ANY TIME. If that O-line dosen't get it together The Boller Show may be back on the air permanently. Another thing you need to keep in mind about McNair is that his best football may be behind HIM. Thats the draw back of NFL vets. Their bodies give out long before their spirit. If his arm can't consistently make certain types of passes then it's something the better defenses in this league will key on. You usually meet these better defenses in the playoffs.

[CDiPiranha]

QUOTE:"Namath was a career 50% passer (his best year was 52.9%), that isn't good in any era. He did throw for a lot of yards in the wide open AFL, once he started playing teams with defenses he was never good again."

Greg, while Namath doesn't have a strong career completion percentage, in looking up some quik stats across eras I noticed that Kyle Boller has a similar (within 1.5 percentage points) or better career completion percentage (the ones Kyle exceeds are in bold) than the following old-school QBs...

Sonny Jurgensen
Fran Tarkenton
Roger Staubach
Bert Jones
Bob Griese
Archie Manning
John Brodie
John Unitas
Roman Gabriel
Norm Snead
Terry Bradshaw
Earl Morrall
Jim Hart
John Hadl
Daryl Lamonica
Jack Kemp

Oh yeah, and Joe Namath.

NOTE: the important thing to realize is that EVERY QB NAMED is at least a former All-Pro QB in the AFL, NFL or both -- and a few of them have busts in Canton!

In looking at those comparisons and the strong QBs of the past that Kyle's stats seem to measure up well against, do you still think the game played back then is similar to the game played today (and that stats still tell the true story and are unaffected by the rule changes & such)?!

QUOTE: "He (Namath) threw for a lot of yards without regard for ball safety. Somebody figured out that turnovers were the stat that most indicated wins over losses and the emphasis on ball security came into being...

The thing that keeps his (Namath's) rating low is the very high amount of INTs he threw, which is not because of the era".

Okaaay,

so Greg, you feel that the amount or frequency of INTs Namath threw has lil or nothing to do with the era he played in, huh?

let's take a look.

In looking again at the stats of many QBs, I noticed that Kyle Boller has a lower/better career INT ratio (less INTs per pass attempt) than the following Old School QBs...

Kenny Stabler
Dan Fouts
and Bart Starr

oh yeah, I forgot to add...

ALL THE OTHER GUYS ON THE TOP LIST ALSO!!!

oh yeah... and uh Joe Namath.

So exactly what level of "ball safety" were these other strong QBs from yesteryear practicing if our main man Kyle is statistically better than them?!

Greg, again I say to you, in seeing that comparison do you still believe that these stats are indicative of the level of player Kyle is in relation to QBs of the past eras?!

For Kyle (a QB that everyone knows has performed marginally as a pro) to have important statistics EVEN IN THE BALLPARK with past top-tier QBs (not to mention that he actually EXCEEDS most of these All-Pros) should be proof-postive to you and to all reading this that the numbers you put into some "QB ratings" formula doesn't tell the story and doesn't span across the eras...

the reason that it doesn't span across the eras is simply because the game has changed entirely too much...

which is what I was trying to explain to you from the jump!

.02 fromC DiP

[MikeinGlennDale]

Do these same Kyle Boller apologists yearn for the glory days when Chris Redman was touted as the next coming?

[evade6317]

I would bet our SB chances on Boller and So has the Ravens front office because Boller is the backup and Given McNair's age and wear and tear YOU MAY SEE BOLLER STARTING @ ANY TIME. If that O-line dosen't get it together The Boller Show may be back on the air permanently. Another thing you need to keep in mind about McNair is that his best football may be behind HIM. Thats the draw back of NFL vets. Their bodies give out long before their spirit. If his arm can't consistently make certain types of passes then it's something the better defenses in this league will key on. You usually meet these better defenses in the playoffs.

The FO isn't wagering their chances on Boller, they are wagering it on McNair. If they had the perceived confidence you say they have, McNair wouldn't be on the team, and the FO wouldn't have attempted to trade up and grab Brady Quinn.

The book has been written. According to SI, and anyone with two eyes, McNair has a weak arm and Boller is a bust. The funny thing is that a weak armed QB can perform at a Pro Bowl level but a bust can't.

[Art-Florida]

This thread has more crocks flying around than Kraft Foods ever dreamed of.

[Capt. Atari]

The FO isn't wagering their chances on Boller, they are wagering it on McNair. If they had the perceived confidence you say they have, McNair wouldn't be on the team, and the FO wouldn't have attempted to trade up and grab Brady Quinn.

The book has been written. According to SI, and anyone with two eyes, McNair has a weak arm and Boller is a bust. The funny thing is that a weak armed QB can perform at a Pro Bowl level but a bust can't.

Well apparently the FO doesn't appear to think he's a bust giving him a 1yr extension and if you're starting McNair you are wagering on your backup. I think it is safe to say that the FO has some confidence Boller. A lot more than many fans would like to believe.

[evade6317]

Well apparently the FO doesn't appear to think he's a bust giving him a 1yr extension and if you're starting McNair you are wagering on your backup. I think it is safe to say that the FO has some confidence Boller. A lot more than many fans would like to believe.

So getting paid to be a backup isn't being a bust? Nope, he's a bust.

[Baltoman07]

Ryan Leaf was a bust....Anyone thats been in the league for 5 years and gets a new contract isn't a bust. Kyle will never be P. Manning, but he is a good #2.

[evade6317]

Is that what you say about Travis Taylor?

EDIT: I'm going to guess this question will be avoided at all costs and will never be answered.

[Greg]

Did Travis Taylor re-sign with us? I can't recall, but I believe we just let him walk. He got chances to start in Minny and continued to stink and is now a bust. He was a bust here but he wasn't officially complete until the Vikings gave up on him. He is now in Oakland and who knows, but at this point I think we can safely call him done.

Boller isn't there yet.

[Greg]

I can recall Plunkett going through a rough 5 years, I can recall the Broncos drafting Maddox 7 years into Elway's career to replace him and I can recall a number of QBs floundering for years before getting it.

Apparently our FO and coaches think enough of him to keep him around, that is exactly opposite of your recent predictions about what would happen.

[evade6317]

Did Travis Taylor re-sign with us? I can't recall, but I believe we just let him walk. He got chances to start in Minny and continued to stink and is now a bust. He was a bust here but he wasn't officially complete until the Vikings gave up on him. He is now in Oakland and who knows, but at this point I think we can safely call him done.

Boller isn't there yet.

Based on the evaluation guidelines set forth by Baltoman07 of: years of NFL career> 5 years = not a bust. By his standard, TT is not a bust.


I can recall Plunkett going through a rough 5 years, I can recall the Broncos drafting Maddox 7 years into Elway's career to replace him and I can recall a number of QBs floundering for years before getting it.

Apparently our FO and coaches think enough of him to keep him around, that is exactly opposite of your recent predictions about what would happen.

You can say the exact same thing about Troy Smith as well. But you won't.

Boller's good enough to be a back up, that's what they think. If you want to talk about predictions gone wrong, let's not forget the hugger nation prediction of Boller proving he would be a legit QB in 2005. But of course he couldn't stay healthy and he couldn't win on the road.

Enter McNair.

The attempt to draft Brady Quinn.

The Leftwich negotiations.

Carrying 3 QBs this year.

That doesn't look like the FO has as much faith in him as you think.

[Dont Know]

The attempt to draft Brady Quinn.

The Leftwich negotiations.

Carrying 3 QBs this year.

That doesn't look like the FO has as much faith in him as you think.

I don't think all the above mentioned has to do with a lack of faith in Boller, but rather an organization trying its hardest not to make the same mistake twice.

It's the same reason we are not trying to go for cap hell, no RB depth or in this case no QB depth. All tried by the organization in previous years with abysmal results.

[Greg]

You can say the exact same thing about Troy Smith as well. But you won't.
I have no idea where this is coming from. I have only noted Smith did not have a good pre-season and thus the organization is not confident enough to make him the backup next year. Beyond that I have nothing against Troy Smith and I hope he blossoms into the next Montana.

Boller is going to cost, according to reports, $3 million next year. I don't know what our cap situation is next year but I can say this, they wouldn't be tossing $3 million at him if they considered him a backup only. I am not saying anything more than that.

[purplepoe]

Boller is going to cost, according to reports, $3 million next year. I don't know what our cap situation is next year but I can say this, they wouldn't be tossing $3 million at him if they considered him a backup only. I am not saying anything more than that.

I would.

He's a backup that they feel comfortable with in that role.

Again, so many other things have transpired just in the last year that are clear indications that Boller isn't the future starter that Im tired of listing them.

A one year extension is far from a statement that he's anything more than a backup.

PP

[Greg]

We'll see, but my guess is they want to see if he can up his game some more and take the starter's job. I don't think they have written that off. Otherwise, why sign him now?

[purplepoe]

We'll see, but my guess is they want to see if he can up his game some more and take the starter's job. I don't think they have written that off. Otherwise, why sign him now?

Because he accepted a deal on their terms.

And because it's obvious that during camp no other QB on this team showed close to enough to warrant consideration for the backup job here in 2008. All this Troy Smith talk is WAY too premature. He barely made the team IMO.

Again, he could've just said no to the one year deal and tested the FA market for a chance to start somewhere else.

After watching yesterday's games, there are at least 4 or 5 teams that he could sign with with a chance to compete right away for the starters job. He'd also get more than a 1 year deal in all likelihood.

Again, despite what some on this board would have you believe, I don't hate Boller. I just don't want him starting.

If some view this extension as a sign of him being the future, so be it. I see it as a sign that they want him here to backup for next year. And yes, if he does get significant playing time this season and makes major strides, they can sign him for longer. Color skeptical about that. Either way, I think Ozzie will be spending a 1st day pick on a QB next year.

PP

[Greg]

If some view this extension as a sign of him being the future, so be it.
You are over-reading what I am posting. I said he isn't out of the running, he won't get handed the job but he also isn't viewed as "just a backup" by the team.