DougDew

Seems like a case of looking through every read instead of moving out of the pocket after about the second read. Just not enough focus on the rush.

BTW, I didn't watch the game...because I'm not a TEN fan nor a HOU fan. But when I catch the games, I'll assess stuff that goes beyond stats. My quick opinion from just the stats is that Levis did not appear to do much to give the game away, yet his team scored 14 points on only 17 pass attempts and 158 yards passing, while the opponent scored 34. I assume JAX kept the ball a long time and scored on long scoring drives (not short fields). The coach did not put the ball in Levis' hands. Stroud threw 3 picks, so I assume he played like Luck....hurt the team, but made up for it enough to win. Because the coach put the ball in his hands. But that could be completely wrong. Its just one story that could be told from the stats. Ok.

You fool yourself. And its not my fault. For the 27th time on this forum (Back in April, during preseason, after week 5, and now.....no change): Stroud : Yes Levis : Probably Young: No AR: Incomplete If you read Strong Levis Supporter. that's on you.

No, I'm not a strong Levis supporter. I said he had one great game, and a couple of good ones. The back and forth is 100% due to you reading into stuff with exaggeration to present Strawman. Like your post above.

November 19 Young: 16/29, 123 yds 1 TD/ 1 INT, Longest 20 yds, Passer Rating 62.9 Stroud: 27/37 336 yds, 2 TD/ 3 INT Longest 40 yds, Passer rating 85.0 AR: NA Levis: 13/17 158 yds, 2TDs/ 0 INT Longest 49 yds, Passer Rating 143.6

When the players change their minds about wanting to play for the Colts or settle for the money the Colts want to pay them, its a bit of a cheap strawman argument to criticize folks wanting to trade JT or KM at a time the players were reportedly saying they would not. Everybody makes their comments based upon the unknown facts of what the players are actually thinking. You have to know that when you read their comments. BTW, other than JT getting more carries now that reflect his starter status, has he really done anything that Moss couldn't have done?

Has that ever happened before? LOL. Do the individual player rankings take into account the quality of QBs played? I'd wager these rankings are based on pretty superficial looks, like stats, but I don't know.. Not paying KM saves outside corner money for our outside corners (assuming we get some). That's an important element to this entire discussion.

If being all-pro at some positions mattered, some circles should expect they'd have a great winning percentage, like an All-Star pitcher.

You follow them more closely than I do. I think he helped develop the run-first...pass when you have too...strong defense team that got them success for these years. Can he coach a different kind of team? I think he's a quality guy that should be able to make that pivot. Naming Levis the starter indicates to me that he thinks he needs to have a more dynamic offense. Not that Levis can do it, but its a different direction than a game-managing...ish QB like Tannehill. Do you think they bring Tannehill back? Do you think they keep Henry?

LOL. Its now the third time you've accused me of not accepting your facts. I can see this convo is filled with stubbornness, or it just plain can't push though a blind spot.

In some circles of Colts country, I thought that's what they expected the LG and the WILL LB to do.

No, its not my perception, You were being argumentative because you were accusing me of not accepting your facts (stats) when I did know them but was merely pointing out that they mean virtually nothing relative to the point I was making. Stroud is a better QB than Levis. That's not being disputed. Its like saying Levis didn't play well against TB because Aaron Rogers and the GB offense had better stats with the same number of throws. That would be true, he didn't put up the same stats, so what? I'm saying that he didn't play unexpectedly considering what TEN typically asks its QB to do.

Totally agree. Other than opining when one plays well or not, there is no critical mass of evidence to make a definitive opinion about any of them at this point. Especially since the Colts QB's performance can't really even be discussed further until next September, and we're left talking about the QBs of other teams.. I'd be surprised if many fans regularly watch the games of the other QBs very closely.

I don't dispute the NUMBER of times Levis threw the ball against a common opponent. I bought up Stroud as a comparison of the different offensive styles that influence raw statistics between two QBs, despite how many times they throw the ball in any one game against similar opponents. Building an offense to serve Henry's success, then Henry being unsuccessful, is actually detrimental to a QBs success. Just like JT getting stuffed made Wentz and Ryan suck more. They did better when JT was busting off runs. I don't know why you sound argumentative. Are you saying the Levis is not as good of QB than Stroud? I agree. A direct comparison between Levis and Stroud was never my point, but you don't seem to get that.

Yeah, folks can dig into this as deeply as they want. Anything reported in the media can be biased or simply misinformed or exaggerated. I don't know the legitimacy of the site that's hosting the article. I also don't know what agenda could be promoted by this article, or what the reason would be to lie or misinform. I assume it comes down to what his definition of injuries are, and if its the same definition he applied to the history of the other QBs. Since the injuries could be a result of the teams reporting something, what gets reported by one team might not get reported by another.

Oh sure, if I did not say it I meant to. The Dr. is giving his opinion, but we don't really know what he looked at or the seriousness of the injuries. All we can infer is that he looked at all of the QBs equally, and concluded that AR was near the top of the list in injury frequency. I assume as a Dr. of medical sports, he's not going to equate contusions with tears, etc, so his conclusion about AR's frequency relative to the other QBs he's talking about seems objective to me.

Oh sure. I wouldn't begin to opine about what Ballard knew. In the timeliness about the forum's current discussions about AR, this is simply a new bit of info that adds to what we as fans knew or didn't know all of this time.

I get that, and I clarified it before by saying that it is a "fact" created out of someone's judgement/definition. That kind of fact often gets used just like more absolute facts...... like a player got tackled or a player ran for three yards, etc...when there is much less absoluteness built into it.

I'm quoting an article. I'm not saying anything.

You could also ask, I wonder how many total games. starts, and football plays he would have had in his career if he had the surgeries instead of playing? He may have ended up not even playing much football. lost his starting job to another player, or gave up the game after several surgeries. Lots of IF's no one can answer.

Its seems like the NFL is trying to make a knock off of the pitcher stats in baseball. Stats tell a more accurate story in baseball because baseball is really a collection of 9 players making a play on the ball. That's what they do, hit the ball, catch the ball, throw the ball....they don't have individual battles with the opponent. A pitcher generally has a one on one battle with the batter (not withstanding errors made by his defense that extends his time on the mound) and that's why the W/L record for a pitcher is relevant. (other players have error stats, throwing out baserunners, hitting pct, slugging ptc. etc which is more about what they do with the ball) FB is all about many players battling some other player....not the ball. We all know that in FB, if one player loses his battle with another player, it can have a huge impact on the success the QB has. Not to mention the guy on the sidelines influencing it by calling dozens of different (bad or good?) plays during the game. A pitcher decides on his own to throw any one of about 4 pitches after assessing the game situation on his own. He is relatively responsible for his own W/L record. A QB hardly is, IMO. Sorry, even though the football commissioner has the credentials to form the stat, I don't see it meaning much, IMO.

But apparently AR has suffered more injuries than the others.....who also played football when they were the same age as AR. Whatever degree you think all players play with injuries, apparently AR is near the top of the list. I'm simply pointing out that the injury history does not appear to be common knowledge and it works counter to the theory that his issues this year are the result of simple bad luck. I'm not forecasting the future. But its good to hear about the shoulder and favorable prospects for recovery and non-re-injury.

I'm sure the Dr. knows this. He was comparing the histories of AR to other QBs in the draft. That's all. So if AR gets injured this season more than the other QBs, its not really a surprise, is it?

He didn't say. He just said that AR has the most extensive injury history of any of the QBs available for the draft. My impression is that most people think these injuries were a surprise. Apparently, if AR was the most injury prone coming into the draft, then what happened to him should not be unexpected or be considered a stroke of bad luck. That's how I think about it.

Goodness though, this is disconcerting: Morse -- who has not examined Richardson -- pointed out the lengthy list of physical issues Richardson had battled dating back to high school. "Out of all of the quarterbacks expected to be drafted, Richardson has one of the longest injury histories," Morse wrote. "Just because a player doesn't miss a game does not mean that they are 100% healthy or did not leave the game early due to injury." According to Morse's report, Richardson had sustained 11 injuries prior to the AC sprain he suffered Oct. 3 in the game against the Titans. They include four knee injuries, three hamstring injuries, two shoulder injuries, a concussion and an ankle injury. Richardson is 21.