Wuerffel Well Suited to Backup Role for 2002

[bulldog]

the goal of every team is to have a backup quarterback who knows the system, can help mentor a high draft choice that is the future of the position, and can go in and play on a moment's notice and execute the basic plays of the offense, right?

so, in my mind for the 2002 season mission accomplished.

there is more to making an NFL quarterback than raw statistics from one set of preseason games.

the choice Spurrier made was as much one based on intangibles as on actual results.

everyone knows Shane came on and produced points when the Patriots #1 defense had left the field. In that regard, he didn't outshine Wuerffel in a strict comparison because the playing fields weren't level.

but the same can be said for the preseason games 1 and 2. Shane didn't get a chance to join the bombs away party in Japan against the 49ers and thus lost out on a prime opportunity to pad his stats as Danny managed to do in the second half, to the chagrin of Mariucci.

against the Panthers the reverse of what happened to Danny against the Patriots happened. Shane started the game and did a decent job but didn't put up blinding stats. Wuerffel again came off the bench and did well against guys who are now out of work.

So, for anyone to say that Danny deserved the start based on his numbers is obviously ignoring when those stats were amassed and against whom.

in fact you take out the stats against the 49ers in that one magnificent half of wizardry ........269 yards and 3 td's and Danny's stats from that point forward aren't that outstanding.

Whatever Spurrier's own observations and motivations for making the decision he did, it is the same one that Dick Jauron's 13-3 staff made last year in Chicago. Shane Matthews was a co-leader for the starting qb job until the final preseason game when he was hurt, while Danny Wuerffel remained a solid but distant #3 the entire season to both Miller and Wuerffel.

You look at their career numbers in the NFL and that only confirms that Matthews has made more of his opportunities. And let's not pretend that the Bears (other than last season) and the Panthers have been NFL juggernauts in recent years

Wuerffel was drafted in round 4 by Mike Ditka for the same reason many Florida backers are so sure of his success now, namely that he just needs a chance to show what he can do in an otherwise fair and equitable situation.

Now, Mike also traded for and thought the same thing about Heath Shuler in 1998 so I don't know how much you can trust his judgment when it comes to grooming quarterbacks :shootinth

He obviously considered that a tough kid that could compete in the college ranks and be successful should with hard work be able to do the same thing in the NFL.

There is where the faulty assumption lies.

If that were the case, Archie Griffin and Steve Spurrier himself would be in the NFL Hall of Fame.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Boy, am I tired of these grand conclusions about Wuerffel's "failure." Wuerffel showed in his first two games that he could complete just about any possible pass in Spurrier's system, with passes that were perfectly delivered even against tight coverage. He also showed that he could unload the ball under pressure (the kind he could see), and even complete a pass while being sacked.

As Art has demonstrated, Wuerffel didn't even have a bad game against the Steelers. He appeared for one quarter, completed two out of five passes with two drops. The fifth pass was a bomb on a broken play in which Lockett stopped running -- and thus the INT. No big deal.

Sure, the Patriots game was a disaster, but the OL (especially from the blind side) was the worst I've ever seen by an OL on any level. The Patriots shut down Warner and the Rams in the Super Bowl, so it shouldn't be a surprise that Wuerffel didn't find any open receivers in the two seconds he had before being crushed from the blind side or chased from the pocket.

I'm fine with starting Shane Matthews, because he's not a big dropoff from Wuerffel and may have more confidence at this moment. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with Wuerffel if he's given anything close to decent protection.

You guys are running from Wuerffel like rats from a sinking ship. It wouldn't shock me if he ends the year with more starts than Matthews. He's a good QB. The problem is our LT and LG.

[GatorEye]

ASF - I echo your statements and stated as much in another thread. Shane and Danny are basically interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. If we have to go to our "second string" QB, it's basically the same as our first. I don't think Danny failed in the NE game, but SOS probably wanted to see him play a lot better than he did even with the poor line play. I think the fumbles hurt his cause. Regardless, I think you'll see as much of Danny as Shane and I'd be comfortable with either running the FNG!

I've found a lot of fickle people around here. First Ramsey is the greatest thing since sliced bread and Danny had as much value as the gum on the bottom of someone's shoe. Then people were clamoring to trade Ramsey when he held out and thought Danny should be the starter as he was playing great. Now most people are convinced Shane should be the starter. I enjoy reading everyone going back and forth, but I think we can all agree SOS knows better than any of us who should be playing and who shouldn't.

[Guest Trevor]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

Boy, am I tired of these grand conclusions about Wuerffel's "failure." Wuerffel showed in his first two games that he could complete just about any possible pass in Spurrier's system, with passes that were perfectly delivered even against tight coverage. He also showed that he could unload the ball under pressure (the kind he could see), and even complete a pass while being sacked.

As Art has demonstrated, Wuerffel didn't even have a bad game against the Steelers. He appeared for one quarter, completed two out of five passes with two drops. The fifth pass was a bomb on a broken play in which Lockett stopped running -- and thus the INT. No big deal.

Sure, the Patriots game was a disaster, but the OL (especially from the blind side) was the worst I've ever seen by an OL on any level. The Patriots shut down Warner and the Rams in the Super Bowl, so it shouldn't be a surprise that Wuerffel didn't find any open receivers in the two seconds he had before being crushed from the blind side or chased from the pocket.

I'm fine with starting Shane Matthews, because he's not a big dropoff from Wuerffel and may have more confidence at this moment. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with Wuerffel if he's given anything close to decent protection.

You guys are running from Wuerffel like rats from a sinking ship. It wouldn't shock me if he ends the year with more starts than Matthews. He's a good QB. The problem is our LT and LG.

I don't know how you can honestly call Wuerffel a good qb without him ever proving so on a NFL level.

I could probably not say say anything about the quote about that Pats game being the worst offensive line play you have ever scene, considering that you tend to blow things out of poportion, but if that's the worst offensive line performance you have ever seen than you haven't watched all that much football. Especially pre season games. Find someone who has some Pats tapes from the Dick Macpherson days and you will see a lot worse. I'm sure there are countless other examples of worst line play as well.

Like Bulldog says he makes a decent backup QB for this team at this time and can probably play halfway decent at certain moments. But from what I've seen of his NFL time if he's gotta play a lot we're in trouble.

[dchogs]

yeah, gatoreye, i too am getting dizzy watching people waffle over our qb's. it's like watching the us open. we're talking some serious back and forth action . the board has been plastered with "trade that b@stard" and "ramsey is my new favorite redskin" almost in the same breath. i'm not ragging on anyone in particular, if anyone at all. i'll just sit back and have faith in spurrier's decisions. who ever he chooses is fine with me.

[Die Hard]

I think it's a win-win situation for Steve Spurrier. Hey, if the Skins start winning... it's the QBs playing in the right system. If the Skins falter on offense... everyone will claim they've said all along Matthews/Weurffel were inadequate NFL QBs.

But really, isn't Shane Matthews the equivalent to Jim Miller? And if the Bears are given the benefit of the doubt because of their defense... I think the Skins can be just as successful with Matthews under center.

As long as we're contending for a playoff spot I don't mind Weurffel as the backup. The minute we're out of it... the Skins need to move on and get Ramsey some snaps for next year.

Now I've seen some talk about... "If the Skins win this year... do you keep with the QB that got you there or do you bring in Ramsey?"

But I'd like to follow that up... since I belive the Skins offense will start off slowly and progress over the season.

If the Skins finish 9-7... but go 6-3 over their last 9 games... do you still aim to start Ramsey next year? Or do you recognize it took time to develop but the offense made great strides?

[bulldog]

when you draft a quarterback with your top choice and give him a signing bonus to match, the implicit stance of the organization has to be that the endgame is getting that player out on the field to be the starter, given time to develop and mature.

I think it would be to the Redskins detriment to be in a spot where Spurrier sees Matthews go 9-7 as a decent starter with a top defense to backstop him and yet declines to advance Ramsey according to the rate of his natural progression.

Neither Matthews nor Wuerffle is a franchise talent. Both players are old enough where what you see is what you get.

There aren't going to be any great suprises from these two.

It may be a surprise to Peter King that Shane Matthews can step on the field and not embarrass himself, but I think we know from his comments about Fred Smoot that he really doesn't have a very sharp eye

But while we may be happy enough with 9-7 or 10-6 in 2002 as a transition year, our hopes are much higher than that down the road.

And I don't see the current #1 and #2 qbs on this team taking us to a 12-4 or 13-3 record.

[Art]

ASF,

I'm sorry, but left tackle is not our problem. If Chris Samuels is a problem in your world, then your world needs adjustment. Wuerffel was pressured against the Patriots. He also made bad throws, bad decisions, bad audibles and he fumbled three times. He lost the job as our starter on the whole of the preseason in which Matthews appeared to have a growing comfort in the job and Wuerffel appeared to step back. That's pretty much it.

Matthews by most accounts appeared to be very weak early in camp. By the same accounts he started clicking as camp went on and he was growing in confidence as the offense started to click back in his mind, erasing a decade of programming in a different offense. A great thing about the preseason is that Wuerffel established himself as a guy who is capable backing up the starter, or even potentially moving into the lineup as a starter himself. This is really more than we could have hoped given his history in the league.

[bulldog]

let's just reiterate again that Wuerffel's career record of 9 touchdown passes and 16 interceptions in SIX NFL seasons doesn't lead any but the most optimistic and perhaps unrealistic fan to prophesy that Danny is the necessarily the ANSWER at quarterback for any team.

has he come further as Art said than what we could have expected in a few months? Perhaps so.

And that may pay dividends if he has to come in and start some games for us.

But recognize that this is a player whose last NFL start was last decade and was a guy that was running 3rd on the Bears depth chart last season.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

ASF,

I'm sorry, but left tackle is not our problem. If Chris Samuels is a problem in your world, then your world needs adjustment.

Come on, Art, don't we argue enough on substance to avoid these cheap shots?

Obviously I'm not suggesting that Chris Samuels is a problem. In various threads I've posted that he is the most *irreplaceable* player on the team.

When I said "The problem is our LT and LG", I was obviously referring to the play of the LT and LG against the Patriots (with Samuels on the sideline) and the lack of a capable backup behind Samuels, forcing Samuels to play (against the Cardinals) when he may not be fully healed.

Sometimes I think you just like to pick fights with me. This is one of those times.

[Art]

Hey, if you don't like being picked on, then use the proper tense when you write. If you meant the problem WAS our LT and our LG then you are at least partially correct instead of entirely wrong, since Wuerffel was also part of the problem given his inability to hold onto the ball. But, you said our proble IS our LT and LG and I just like to make sure to keep you honest so sometime later in the year when Samuels is beaten for a sack or something you can't come in saying you told us so as you like doing when you get the slightest hint of not being horribly wrong.

But, now that you are clear on what you had meant to say, and that you simply phrased it poorly, I'm ok with it. It just couldn't be more clear why Wuerffel is not starting and Matthews is. Spurrier knows best and until he gives us a reason to doubt that, he's getting the benefit of any doubt.

[Carlito Sway]

"But really, isn't Shane Matthews the equivalent to Jim Miller? And if the Bears are given the benefit of the doubt because of their defense... I think the Skins can be just as successful with Matthews under center".

Excellent point, Die Hard.

To boot, Shane will be far more effective in a HBC system than he or Jim Miller would ever be in da Bears' scheme. HTTR!

[Stricknine]

What is funny is living here near Chicago, when I mention the Shane Matthews starting QB thing, almost all Bear fans laugh at me. In fact one of my co workers just the other night, when I mentioned how Matthews had won the starting job and at least had winning NFL experience, laughed and said, "If thats what you want to call it".

In these Bear fans' defense though, they don't think too much of Miller either and are praying for Chandler to get some PT.

What amazes me though is that to a man, none of them blame the poor QB stats on Shoop (Bears OC). My afore mentioned buddy does however agree that if anyone can milk great stats from Shane, it is Spurrier.