09-01-2016, 11:09 PM
(09-01-2016, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: His 87.8 passer rating against the Broncos top ranked defense was the fifth best in 16 regular season games. Here are how some other top QBs fared against the Broncos last year
Joe Flacco.........38.2
Aaron Rodgers..69.7
Phillip Rivers.....71.7 (2 games)
Matt Stafford....74.5
The only teams he lost to were playoff teams. He can't help it that the only other teams he played were very bad.
McCarron posted a 97.1 passer rating which was better than most starters and far superior to any back up who played significant snaps.
people who think we have just as good of a chance of winning games with any other back up (even guys like Vick and Sanchez) are clueless. In Sanchez's 3 years as a starter he never had a passer rating higher than 78.2. His career rating is 74.3 and he has thrown 84 ints in just 75 games. He is a horrible QB. Mike Vick has gone 8-14 as a starter over the last 4 years and posted a 78.2 passer rating. He is washed up.
Look, the kid was managed. The offense was clearly pared down to protect him from mistakes. That's why the offense went from averaging 376.3 yards under Dalton, to averaging only 276.8 yards in McCarron's 4 starts. That's a 100 yard drop. Passer rating isn't going to tell the entire story. He was able to play it safe and rely on the weapons around him to make plays on short throws. This resulted in a higher completion % and low INT numbers, but he was lacking in big plays and only averaged 191 yards per start. Essentially, he is what Dalton bashers always accused him of being: an average QB whose weapons made him look better, not vice versa.
For another example of how McCarron was "managed", just look at the difference between the Steelers game and his starts following that. Against the Steelers, you actually saw him trying to air it out and be aggressive, with mixed results. He hit on a couple, but he also threw a couple picks (including a pick 6). The rest of the season, it was dink and dunk city, but he didn't throw the dreaded pick.
The Broncos figured him out in the second half of that key game, and the Steelers had his number for 3.5 quarters. Those were the only good teams he faced. All this leads me to believe that if relied upon to start a full 16 game schedule, we'd be boned and McCarron wouldn't be posting a 97.1 rating. He's a solid backup. One that can come in and play 2-3 games in a spot, but I don't want to see him any longer than that. That's why I said I wasn't "overly impressed". I didn't mean it as harsh criticism, I'm only saying I don't see him as the future stud that some on here believe he will be.
As for Sanchize, nobody is claiming the dude is a solid starter. But you're judging numbers where he was "the guy" and comparing it to a small sample size where a backup was micro-managed. Hardly a fair comparison. Sanchez was hardly impressive as a starter, but he's a proven winner (both regular and post season) and that is invaluable off the bench. Similar story with Vick. He's not the player he once was, but I have faith that these coaches and players would have him ready to win a couple if needed. He did go 2-1 with a not-so-bad 79.8 rating in 3 starts last year.
BTW, if you don't respect my post enough to address each point, I won't respond any further.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
