You draft a QB #2 overall you want him to start this season. Maybe back in 1995 on some Steve McNair shyt you say let him sit but not anymore.
They want him to start.
Is Mariota even better than Mettenberger?
- Thread starter godkiller
- Start date
They want him to start.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
I said I dind't watch him. I said I am going to go to the tape and make my own assessment.
I'm not like you on some "I'm not watching him....but I'll datamine someone elses opinion on him and defend it tooth and nail making it my own. I'm lazy!!"
You're crazy.
The Titans were awful.. Mettenberger is talented. I saw him play a little bit I like arm talent
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
The site didn't tell him he is though.
And he will argue you on THEIR behalf, not his own.
I'm not defending anything tooth and nail. The stats are the stats- and history proves Mettenberger would be an anomaly if he turns into a quality starter. DVOA isnt an opinion- with QB's is very straight forward. If you want to bet against history, go for it- I'm just telling you its not in your favor to do so.
STAN JONES
Veteran
Oh i dont blame Tennessee for taking Mariotta at all
The last thing any team wants to have to deal with is your starting QB possibly failing a drug test or getting in trouble off the field so I understand completely but on the field I still believe Mettenberger is the better qb prospect
I like your Tannehill comparison too but i dont think he has the arm to be consistently accurate on deep passes
He'll have the same struggles Tannehill does and will probably be best suited for a dink & dunk offense just like the one Tannehill runs
IMO his arm is his biggest weakness,thats the main reason i like Mettenberger over him
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
yes you are defending it.
You're defending your dikkriding use of someone elses stat mining to define a player you took ZERO time to see and think you're having a debate.
It's not someone else's stat. These aren't individual made up stats...idk why youre being so dismissive of the data presented.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
Point is...it wasn't YOURS. You didn't watch him and are arguing about his potential based on someone else...not YOU.
Exactly what did I say wrong here?
I said data is supposed to buttress your point. Who dismissed it? Me? You let it define it for you and made it your eye test with your eyes shut to a player.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
@Trip is the definition of shytty sports talk, man. These dudes rely on numbers and solely numbers to speak on players they don't even watch.
I've watched plenty of players with shytty numbers who when seeing them play gave me a completely opposite perspective than the numbers produced because I bring to the table my own football acumen.
I've watched plenty of players with shytty numbers who when seeing them play gave me a completely opposite perspective than the numbers produced because I bring to the table my own football acumen.
I saw Mettenberger play one game against Baltimore and he was horrible. Looks like that one terrible game carried over into 6 of them, mostly. He threw an interception in every start he had. Hunter and Wright had the most amount of non catchable passes thrown in their direction last year. To say I didnt watch him at all would be false. The history of the numbers doesnt paint a promising picture for Mettenberger. Which is probably a big reason they decided to take Mariota. You're arguing for an anomaly to happen.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
So after initially admitting to not watching him, you're NOW going to use one game as a huge enough sample size to speak on his potential
Dude...at what point do you stop moving goal posts and coming up with excuses and just admit that you use stat sites to define players you don't watch for you?
Admit to being a fake sports talk dude. It's ok. I pretended to at times.
Can't judge Mett going 0-6 playing behind last season's O-line. He held some off-season practices that the receivers actually showed up to. This was going to be his make or break season. 
So after initially admitting to not watching him, you're going to use one game as a huge enough sample size to speak on his potential
Dude...at what point do you stop moving goal posts and coming up with excuses and just admit that you use stat sites to define players you don't watch for you?
Admit to being a fake sports talk dude. It's ok. I pretended to at times.
What did Mettenberger show last year? What was I missing? Football outsiders helps bring context to things and allows you to judge individual players on an even playing field. He was so in the red last year the chances of him getting to be a quality starter is minimal at best.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
I don't know what he's shown. I didn't watch him.
You think you know what's he's shown by not watching him and SOLELY relying on stats.
That's the point. It's fake sports talk