If there's no moral dimension, I don't get what dick pics have to do with leadership. You think the other players on the team are saying to themselves, "I'm not going to block hard for this guy, he sends dick pics over his phone"?
Seems your moral compass is strongly affected by won-loss record. Geno can't be our QB because of dick pics, but Favre is all right with them. You can be anti-Geno if you want, but spare us the selective "moral objections".
Just like Marino ruined it for all QBs who take time to mature, Beckham has ruined it for WRs in the same situation. A lot of WRs don't get it the first year, until Beckham fans just accepted it. No more. They want the player to be good from his first game.
Seems to me a pretty good football man used to say, "Winning isn't everything-it's the only thing". Geno's off-the-field issues are small potatoes compared to what is going on in the rest of the league. The airline ended up apologizing to Geno, (after Geno wanted to see the employee's boss, usually a sign of someone trying to be rational), and a guy who was just celebrated on national television on Thanksgiving as an inspiration to us all used to send dick pics.
We all know we aren't going to win anymore with Fitz. Put in Geno and let's see what he can do.
They always seem to. Early in the season I had resigned myself to Fitz being the starter the rest of the season too, but then I realized this is Fitz' act. Great locker room personality, decent success early in the season, then a bad second half, then the team lets him go. This has been going on since forever.
I think my post above answered your question posted afterward. What about the first two years of Terry Bradshaw, Jim Plunkett and Joe Flacco would lead you to believe that they would improve? Yet they won four, two and one, (so far), Super Bowl respectively. Oh yeah, you can throw in Drew Brees and Steve Young as well.
True, the list of QBs that don't do well their first two years and then continue to show they'll never do well is longer than the list of QBs who did badly their first two years then showed they were good. However, the list of QBs who didn't do well their first 10 years and then became good is nonexistent. Actually, there is one but don't tell anybody, Carl will yell Aha!. So on that basis alone, Geno should get the nod, since we clearly need better at QB than we are going to get from Fitz from here on.
Overall Geno did okay against Oakland, he brought us back. As for expecting something different from a young QB in his third year, are you kidding? Terry Bradshaw stunk his first two years, then won four Super Bowls. Jim Plunkett stunk his first two years, then won two Super Bowls. Joe Flacco stunk his first two years, then won a Super Bowl and is still going. Got any lists of QBs who stunk their first 10 years and then got better?
At this point, I see no reason to think that Fitz gives us a better chance to win. Fitz has pulled this act his whole career-nice personality, get the team to really like you, start out pretty good and give everyone the idea you are really building something together, and El Flusho for the second half.
Yes your numbers were wrong. And Geno had even worse receivers his first year than he did his second. And he was a year younger. He improved his second year after his first, and the receiving corps became even better this year. Now that Fitz has hit the mid-year wall he always hits, see why I want to give Geno another shot for at least a few games?
No, your stats were mathematically wrong, that's why I first posted to correct you. Your stat showed Geno with a considerably worse pass attempt per interception ratio than he actually had. In fact Geno was very close last year to what Fitz has this year. And considerably better in interceptions per game. And Geno had considerably worse receivers.
In the future, please try to get your fourth-grade arithmetic right if you are going to post a mathematical analysis. Thank you.