Califan007 The Constipated

I was thinking more about converting 3rd downs than TDs...and unfortunately we know all too well that a 3rd down completion doesn't automatically equate to a 1st down. Do you have the stats for 3rd down conversion rates? I guess I could look it up but it's just too windy outside lol...

I hadn't thought about the part in bold...hadn't thought about Gibson's part at all in any of this, to be honest lol...they started using him differently once Robinson showed he could carry his share of the load if I'm not mistaken.

Q19: Are you usually late, early, or on time? Why? Q16: How many days could you last in solitary confinement? How would you do it?

As someone just mentioned, drives are sustained at a better rate with Heinicke behind center, and that's probably because he knows the offense better, Turner's playcalling is different with Heinicke behind center, more reliant on the run game...I also think I remember someone pointing out that Heinicke was better on 3rd down than Wentz but I can't say for sure.

Yeah, you can read what I wrote above as well lol...but long story short, chalking up the 10 extra yards (which, let's face it, isn't much at all) to Robinson being in the lineup doesn't really hold water. It's more about offensive consistency than anything in my eyes. Wentz did not provide that (or rather, the offense was not nearly as consistent when he was in the lineup for various reasons). Turner calling plays differently plays a role. Heinicke knowing the offense better plays a role. and so on and so on. But again, it's just 10 yards difference, not enough yards to split between 4 or 5 different reasons. I was mainly saying it's wild that 1) our offensive yardage output remained in the bottom 3rd of the league regardless of who was QB--almost expected it to tilt heavily in Wentz's favor until I saw how inconsistent the offense was during his 6 starts...and 2) a significantly better passing offense (yardage wise anyway) didn't benefit the offensive ranking overall.

Wentz before Robinson returned lol...

Your post made it seem that his insertion into the lineup provided another 10 yards per game when Heinicke was behind center...I was showing that his rushing contribution didn't play anymore of a role in those two games with Heinicke than it did with his two games with Wentz, yet the yardage totals in those games with Heinicke remained relatively high...I guess you could say he was still playing at the same level of recovering from a gun shot wound for those first 4 games--2 with each QB. I thought maybe the offense was fortunate to have Robinson take on more yardage as Heinicke's game started regressing a bit, but even against the Cowboys when we had 142 rushing yards we still didn't gain over 300 total offensive yards. Long story short, it's more than just Robinson that differentiates the yardage totals...like I said, with Wentz it was higher highs and lower lows. In four of his 6 games the offense scored a grand total of 10 points in the first half. 8 quarters of play and only 10 combined points. That dictates a lot of what the offense is gonna do in terms of the run game. Yet the games with Wentz that had the most rushing yards gained the least amount of total offensive yards...one due to Wentz getting injured but it wasn't like the offense dropped off a cliff after his injury in that game. It sucked all 60 minutes. You needed to read the rest of the thread lol...and just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean the reason isn't valid.

Not really lol...Robinson was in for Wentz's last two games. His yardage totals in those games compared to the first two games with Heinicke: Tenn: 22 yds (total offensive yards: 385) Chicago: 60 yds (total offensive yards: 214) Green Bay: 73 yds (total offensive yards: 364) Indy: 20 yds (total offensive yards: 362)

The wild part about that chart is that the offense averages about 10 more yards per game with Heinicke than with Wentz. EDIT: to be more specific, the offense with Wentz had higher highs and lower--sometimes much lower--lows. With Heinicke it's more consistent. Three of Wentz's games the offense was held to under 300 yards, as with Heinicke the offense was only held below 300 yards once.

Q35: What are you a “natural” at doing?

Still holds true

The McLaurin pass I think you'd still get--dude was wide open and it was the right call for him to make. Pass was like a yard short, I don't expect Heinicke or any QB to think "Oh, if he was just a yard closer"...the Samuel pass, yeah, that's gone lol. But it gets replaced by him throwing it to--was it McLaurin?--who was wiiiiiiide open around like the 20 yd line and was the correct read.

Actually it's not overruled lol...pretty much agree with you on all of it. Only thing I might diverge on is if Heinicke's decision making can improve to the point that it's one of the things that make his INT-worthy throws less of a concern. Haven't put much thought into whether or not it can, just that there are a multitude of things that a QB can do to negate those INT-worthy throws (and even reduce them, of course). By the way, the processing speed thing was one of the things I was prepared to respond to you with--and for the reason you said--so when I saw you mention it I thought well ****, maybe it's not as slippery a slope as I thought lol...

This is a slippery slope, you know that right? lol...

Ok, full disclosure: I have no idea how big of a Heinicke fan he is lol...so if he is as you said, I can better understand your reluctance to believe him and your initial take on his post. Doesn't mean you're right, but at least I have context. I tend to just read posts as they are written--most times I don't even bother seeing who wrote them when I start responding. Hell, right now I don't even remember the dude's name lol. But I read his initial post exactly the way he later said he meant it...that can't be a coincidence. And as for me, I don't think arm strength is the antidote to throwing INTs, I think making better decisions is.

Wow, you got like all of it wrong lol... His comments weren't about the plays of the different QBs nor trying to dismiss Heinicke's INT-worthy plays. It was a comment about the fans on this thread. He wasn't making an argument in favor of Heinicke. He was making an argument against fans. Like I said, he even spelled it out for you: "I was just mocking this whole obsession with TH's "turnover worthy" throw nonsense." In response, at least two different people basically said "Nope, you're lying" and I guess have now plugged their ears.

Nope. They even said he wasn't indicating it. And also said why he brought it up. You just choose not to believe him.

You mean this? "Insinuating that Josh Allen making the same mistakes as Heinicke is equal is asinine." What was the Heinicke mistake that was being discussed again? INT-worthy passes. Did anyone claim the mistakes held equal weight? No. Feel free to clear that up.

So Allen does NOT throw INT-worthy passes? Is that your answer? Because that's what you literally just said.

Try it the other way around...to show high end QBs make the same mistakes as Heinicke. So maybe those mistakes aren't the tell-all sign some make it out to be. Real life example: on Twitter a few years back, when Haskins was starting, he missed a wide open WR in the end zone from like the 15 yard line...overthrew him a bit. Chris What's-his-ass (the beat writer, can't remember his last name at the moment lol) said--paraphrasing--"You can't miss that type of throw and expect to be a quarterback in the NFL." I responded to him with a gif of Tom Brady attempting to make the exact same throw to a guy who was even more open...and overthrowing him. His response? (again paraphrasing) "You can't seriously be comparing Haskins to Tom Brady." My response? "I wasn't. But you also can't take one missed throw and pretend that it's an indicator of how well a QB can succeed." Granted, I probably was more verbose than that lol...but it was such an insanely lazy take from him. Put another way, imagine this scenario: Fan 1: "Heinicke's completion percentage last year was better than any of Wentz's completion percentages over the last 3 years. Wentz's is around 60%, he needs to improve to 65% if he wants to be a franchise QB." Fan 2: "Elway had a completion percentage around 60% as well. But Wentz does need to improve his %." Fan 1: "Are you seriously comparing Wentz to Elway? Give me a break." Honestly...would you really believe Fan 2 was saying since Wentz had a completion percentage similar to Elway, that means he's as good as Elway?...Or would you think that he was saying completion % was not the ultra-important metric that determines a QB's success, considering that successful QBs have had completion percentages all over the map? I know which one I'd be thinking. Again...I think it's an issue to the point that I have to include disclaimers in my posts heading off the expected responses before they're even typed. It's similar to the "I'm not a hive member, but..." disclaimers. The fact that some felt the need to add those to their posts told me that the "hive" label was being used too much and in too a lazy fashion.

Nope, don't even slightly agree. I see WAAAAY too many make that insane jump of "Are you really comparing (fill in the blank) to (much better player)" all the time, to the point that I started adding disclaimers to some of my posts, saying things like "And, no, you chuckleheads lol...I am not comparing the two". I understood exactly what he was commenting on when I read his "turnover worthy" post. And I understand exactly why some here interpreted it the wrong way and are hellbent on insisting their interpretation is the right one.

Q47: What is something mischievous you have done? Q61: At what age do you hope to retire? Explain.