Sperm Edwards Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 Count me as a Chadophile. I agree with you about Clemens. I don't see any shame in his not starting this year. Where I have a problem with your theory is this constant harping on "fear-of-worse syndrome." Some of us don't feel Chad was that bad. He was a mid-level qb. Personally, I think you overrate our receivers a little and thereby downgrade Pennington, but that's just me. I think Clemens could turn out to be good. I didn't expect him to be able to start in '06. A lot of people were calling for him because they suffer from "nothing could be worse syndrome." I guarantee you it could and would have been worse. If Clemens beats out Pennington or even plays substantially equal to him in camp and preseason then he should start in '07. I'm not holding my breath. I don't remember anyone saying "nothing could be worse" or alluding to anything of the sort. More along the lines of he's not good enough & whether KC is better or not doesn't change Chad not being good enough. There are worse HC's than Herm. But no matter how bad his replacement might have been (let's say we went with Art Shell instead of Mangini for example), that would not change Herm not being good enough. Same thing with Chad. I do agree that if Clemens plays close to Chad's level in camp he should be starting. I take for granted that an experienced QB will always have that advantage until such time as the inexperienced one gains such. (It was no different with Chad & Vinny - or Chad and Ray Lucas, who Chad also couldn't beat out as a rookie). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I don't remember anyone saying "nothing could be worse" or alluding to anything of the sort. More along the lines of he's not good enough & whether KC is better or not doesn't change Chad not being good enough. There are worse HC's than Herm. But no matter how bad his replacement might have been (let's say we went with Art Shell instead of Mangini for example), that would not change Herm not being good enough. Same thing with Chad. I do agree that if Clemens plays close to Chad's level in camp he should be starting. I take for granted that an experienced QB will always have that advantage until such time as the inexperienced one gains such. (It was no different with Chad & Vinny - or Chad and Ray Lucas, who Chad also couldn't beat out as a rookie). You don't remember it? Alluded to anything of the sort? Where were you? "Nobody could be worse than Pennington" constituted about half the posts this past season. At least through the Houston game it was all anybody could talk about. I'm not saying you said it, but if you think it was said you had your head in the sand. Your third paragraph is where we will separate the "Chadinettes" from the rational. Pennington will most likely outplay Clemens again in camp and preseason. That's to be expected, vet against 2nd year guy. The key is seeing if there is anything there with Clemens and if it is fairly close you go with the younger guy with the bigger arm. The differences in their strengths and weaknesses will make it more difficult to judge than two similar guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Your third paragraph is where we will separate the "Chadinettes" from the rational. Pennington will most likely outplay Clemens again in camp and preseason. If he outplays him, then he deserves to start. Unless we can grab someone else. If Chad is just better at executing the offense and Clemens shows better accuracy, range, and velocity - then Mangini has some more things to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbon Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm still trying to get past the insinuation that because Clemens couldn't beat out an experienced QB as a rookie, in an offense requiring so many audibles, that it means Chad should indefinitely get the benefit of the doubt & Clemens shouldn't see the field. Brees couldn't beat out Doug Flutie as a rookie. Favre couldn't move ahead of Billie Joe Tolliver as a rookie. Carson Palmer was behind Jon Kitna as a rookie. Tom Brady couldn't beat out Drew Bledsoe (or John Friesz or Michael Bishop) as a rookie. McNabb couldn't beat out Doug Pederson as a rookie. Delhomme couldn't beat out either Billy Joe (Tolliver or Hobert) as a rookie. Rivers couldn't beat out Brees OR Doug Flutie as a rookie. Losman couldn't beat out Bledsoe as a rookie or Kelly Holcomb in his 2nd year Trent Green was an 8th-round pick. His 1st completed pass was 4 yrs later. And Chad couldn't beat out Vinnie as a rookie (or entering his 2nd or 3rd seasons). I bet I'm missing more (and this is just counting current starters) but if Chadophiles ran these other teams with their fear-of-worse syndrome, these QB's would never take a meaningful NFL snap because they hadn't proven anything yet. This is an excellent argument. FWIW I think that it is unlikely that Clemons begins the season as the starter and equally unlikely that Chad finishes the season as a starter (injury, Clemmons coming on, etc). Now explain to me why the same argument cant be used to support the idea that Schlegel may end up as the starter at one of the ILB positions next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 This is an excellent argument. FWIW I think that it is unlikely that Clemons begins the season as the starter and equally unlikely that Chad finishes the season as a starter (injury, Clemmons coming on, etc). Now explain to me why the same argument cant be used to support the idea that Schlegel may end up as the starter at one of the ILB positions next season. I cannot. I really hope he turns into something. It would be a damn shame to look back at a wasted day-one pick in such a deep draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgy Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 They have it wrong. There was an extra $6M or so that Chad earned in playing incentives. But those were LTBE (likely to be earned) incentives & counted against the 2006 cap, not 2007. If Chad did NOT reach any or all of those incentives, we would've had a cap CREDIT (MORE than a $109 cap limit) for 2007. Playing time is pretty much always LTBE as far as I know. Examples of NLTBE incentives are like a RB getting 1500 rushing yards or a WR catching 100 passes if they've never done it before. Actually, I think this isn't true. (Apologies from a long time lurker to a long time poster.. LTBE calculations are, to my knowledge, simply made based on the previous year of the player. Since Chad only started 3 games in 2005( see http://www.newyorkjets.com/players/stats/chad-pennington ) than if the games started number was greater than 3, it would not be LTBE, and as such, would not count toward the cap number. The exception, of course, is if the renegotiation occurs after the start of the season. IF this occurs, all are considered LTBE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Actually, I think this isn't true. (Apologies from a long time lurker to a long time poster.. LTBE calculations are, to my knowledge, simply made based on the previous year of the player. Since Chad only started 3 games in 2005( see http://www.newyorkjets.com/players/stats/chad-pennington ) than if the games started number was greater than 3, it would not be LTBE, and as such, would not count toward the cap number. The exception, of course, is if the renegotiation occurs after the start of the season. IF this occurs, all are considered LTBE. If Chad only played 3 games because he was 2nd-string then this would be the case. He only played 3 games b/c of injury. It's LTBE. I'm not 100% positive on this but I'm pretty sure. It's why we weren't able to spend up against the cap before the '06 season. We had to leave $6M in extra space for Chad's playing incentives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgy Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 If Chad only played 3 games because he was 2nd-string then this would be the case. He only played 3 games b/c of injury. It's LTBE. I'm not 100% positive on this but I'm pretty sure. It's why we weren't able to spend up against the cap before the '06 season. We had to leave $6M in extra space for Chad's playing incentives. I don't think that there is a distinction between injury or second string. How would the league office determine if a coach didn't play a guy in a certain game because he wasn't healthy yet, or because his replacement looked better? Here's a page from the atlanta falcons site that goes into it, and doesn't mention anything about injury http://www.atlantafalcons.com/team/article.jsp?id=2699 - as a matter of fact, I've never seen any site that clarifys anythingn other than previous season performance. No big deal - but I highly suspect that we're losing a substantial amount of that ~22 or so mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 I don't think that there is a distinction between injury or second string. How would the league office determine if a coach didn't play a guy in a certain game because he wasn't healthy yet, or because his replacement looked better? Here's a page from the atlanta falcons site that goes into it, and doesn't mention anything about injury http://www.atlantafalcons.com/team/article.jsp?id=2699 - as a matter of fact, I've never seen any site that clarifys anythingn other than previous season performance. No big deal - but I highly suspect that we're losing a substantial amount of that ~22 or so mil. Even if that was the case, which I still don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgy Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Even if that was the case, which I still don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oktaren Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 does barton, mccareins or barrett have ANY trade value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.