Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Carucci feeds the spin about McNabb and Kolb: "more accurate and efficient" Really now?

The Full Monty

By The Full Monty
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

The Full Monty

The Full Monty

Posted
Posted

From the (as of now) front page NFL.com article With McNabb shadow still looming large, Kolb faces tough task, Carucci throws up some BS that is completely unfounded.

McNabb obviously had tremendous success, but his greatest assets are an ultra-powerful arm and mobility. Kolb doesn't have McNabb's arm strength, nor is he particularly mobile. But Kolb throws with better accuracy than McNabb. He also is more consistently efficient.

I'd just like to know, what the hell does that mean? And, how on earth did Carucci come up with that observation? Based on what? 2 Kolb starts compared to 11 seasons? Really? How can you judge someone's consistency off of two starts?

Where is this spin coming from? Sometimes I think they just write bold crap to get fans like us to go on their website and give them more page hits so that they can charge more for advertisements like banner ads. Is that giving them too much credit? Or is Carucci just feeding us pro-Eagles / anti-McNabb spin being fed to him by Philly sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsGuy

SkinsGuy

Posted
Posted

You're right.

There isn't enough NFL data on Kolb yet for Carucci to make this declaration versus McNabb.

Kolb has played in 3 NFL games. He looked bad against 2 good defenses (Saints and Ravens) and good against a bad defense (Chiefs).

The only meter Carucci could be using is Kolb's college stats. His best season (his senior one), Kolb threw for 3800 yards and 30 TDs. His passing percentage was 67.6, which is good.

However, that is college ball, where he routinely threw against lesser competition like Lafyette and Texas Christian.

If you could use that criteria, then every QB who won the Heisman Trophy would be a Super Bowl champion. As we know, it doesn't work that way.

None of that is to say Kolb won't be a great QB (I hope not :) ). However, it is WAY too early to declare him better than any established QB in the NFL, or even the next up and coming one.

The jury is still out on Kolb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinC

MartinC

Posted
Posted

I think Carucci is probably correct that Kolb is a naturally more accurate passer. However it remains to be seen if he can maintain that accuracy under NFL pressure and its also of no use being accurate if you dont make the correct read in the first place.

Kolb looked good in his couple of starts last year. Its going to be fascinating though to see how he looks over a full season - and beyond - once D co-ordinators break down his film and game plan for him. Also how Reid adjusts his game plans and play calling.

McNabb is very much a know and proven commodity. Kolb is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Manasseh

Manasseh

Posted
Posted

I'd just like to know, what the hell does that mean? And, how on earth did Carucci come up with that observation? Based on what? 2 Kolb starts compared to 11 seasons? Really? How can you judge someone's consistency off of two starts?

From the article:

Reid and the Eagles' coaches also are going on what Kolb has displayed in other brief appearances in regular-season games, in preseason outings, in practices, and in the meeting room.

Not sure what it means for a QB to be more "consistently efficient" but anyone that's watched McNabb knows he has stretches in games where he's inaccurate and inconsistent. Normally, that's offset by the fact that he's good for at least a big play or two and the stretches of game where he seems to get hot.

Guess I'm just not seeing what the big deal is about the article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pointyfootball

pointyfootball

Posted
Posted

Not sure why it's a big deal. So Kolb is more accurate, big deal. I would think even the least astute of us could recognize McNabb struggles with accuracy.

My son has a player on his AAU b-ball team that can drain outside shots all day in practice. Put him in a game and he's lucky to score 4 points. Point is, Kolb has to prove it in games that matter, not in 7-on-7s, drills and preseason. And I'm an Eagles fan saying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
warriorz

warriorz

Posted
Posted

Where is this spin coming from? Sometimes I think they just write bold crap to get fans like us to go on their website and give them more page hits so that they can charge more for advertisements like banner ads.

This

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LD0506

LD0506

Posted
Posted

There's no shame in admitting that McNabb has had accuracy issues before, but it is difficult if not impossible to predict what he may accomplish here. He has struggled for years with no credible running game, even Westbrook out of the backfield as a substitute allowed defenses to play pass, and McNabb was forced to "make something happen" in an uphill battle kind of way. To me this is why it is so critical that Shanny & Co. build a legitimate line and running game, so McNabb can avoid being forced to choose between the lesser of evils downfield.

Recently, teams have played us all run, daring us to pass, and we have seen the results of that. McNabb has had to deal with the flipside of that. Some reasonable balance between the two, where McNabb's passing attempts go down in numbers but up in quality could work in our favor.

Having said that, the track record for vet QBs on their 2nd/3rd team is not encouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
holmester

holmester

Posted
Posted

Its pretty much a known fact that kolb is more accurate then mcnabb. Not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Why do you think the eagles traded mcnabb? Donovan has struggled with the short to intermediate passes for a couple of years now and that is said to be kolbs specialty. Carucci is basically stating the obvious. Although mcnabb has been productive over the years he hasn't been necessarily efficient. Most of his scoring drives come from big plays rather then methodical drives down the field. Hopefully with a dedicated running game he will be able to accomplish both hee in DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HBnotBlades

HBnotBlades

Posted
Posted
From the article:

Not sure what it means for a QB to be more "consistently efficient" but anyone that's watched McNabb knows he has stretches in games where he's inaccurate and inconsistent. Normally, that's offset by the fact that he's good for at least a big play or two and the stretches of game where he seems to get hot.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Have we completely forgotten all the games we've played against McNabb over the last 11 seasons? He routinely struggles with accuracy for up to a quarter or a half at a time, but usually keeps making plays. We should all have seen games where he's thrown three ground balls in a row and then was booed by the Philly faithful, it was quite common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
Its pretty much a known fact that kolb is more accurate then mcnabb. Not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Why do you think the eagles traded mcnabb? Donovan has struggled with the short to intermediate passes for a couple of years now and that is said to be kolbs specialty. Carucci is basically stating the obvious. Although mcnabb has been productive over the years he hasn't been necessarily efficient. Most of his scoring drives come from big plays rather then methodical drives down the field. Hopefully with a dedicated running game he will be able to accomplish both hee in DC.

I agree with this post. I don't necessarily see the harm (or inaccuracy) in what was stated in the article.

McNabb is NOT overly accurate. Granted, we don't have a great idea of what Kolb can do over a full season, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him have a higher completion percentage (thus being more efficient) than McNabb in 2010.

Keep in mind, those two measures are merely a drop in the bucket toward being a good QB in the league. As someone pointed out, Campbell was more accurate than McNabb last year but didn't have nearly the season McNabb did overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
morpheusmeyers

morpheusmeyers

Posted
Posted
Nuff said right there.

I think we all know how well Campbell's accuracy translated to winning percentage.

Completion percentage usually is, but isn't always a true indicator of accuracy. In Campbell's case he completed a lot of short and dump off passes but isn't considered a very accurate QB. His deep ball in particular is dodgy at best.

McNabb struggles at times with accuracy. I think we have all seen McNabb's skipped passes in the dirt. But despite that, McNabb is a very good borderline great QB. He bounces back, makes plays, and wins games.

I have little doubt that Kolb is a more accurate passer than McNabb. Everything I have heard/read indicate that he is very accurate. Accuracy alone doesn't mean he will be a great or even good QB, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Tris

The Tris

Posted
Posted
To me this is why it is so critical that Shanny & Co. build a legitimate line and running game, so McNabb can avoid being forced to choose between the lesser of evils downfield.

.....

Having said that, the track record for vet QBs on their 2nd/3rd team is not encouraging.

McNabb's success is intimately tied to the success of the running game. If we have close to a 50/50 split between run and pass this season, I expect McNabb's numbers to be very good. When vet QBs are brought in to carry a team late in their career, the results are almost universally bad.

However, as long as we recognize McNabb's inherent limitations at this stage in his career, and allow the running game to shoulder part of the offensive load, we should be in good shape.

That was the secret to the Shanahan/Elway years...the game plan was highly balanced. In 94, the Broncos ran 40% of the time. Under Shanahan, that number rose steadily to 43% then 50% and finally 51% and 52% the SB years.

From 2000-2009 with McNabb, the Eagles have run on 40%, 44%, 47%, 46%, 40%, 37%(!), 43%, 42%, 41%, 41%.

If (BIG IF granted), we can recreate the Shanahan magic with the OL and RBs, there is really no telling how McNabb's game changes with the support of a running game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mel25

mel25

Posted
Posted

lol i think that's all it is. sometimes i think "ok he's too smart to really believe that." if i put up an article that said "top 5 reasons why peyton manning and tom brady are over rated." people would look just to see how ridiculous i am. all you have to do is speak with a lot of confidence, start statements with "mark my words" and end statements with phrases like "book it" or "and you can take that to the bank" and you can be one of these "experts." every once in a while you'll be right and you can act like a genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aREDSKIN

aREDSKIN

Posted
Posted

Where is this spin coming from? Sometimes I think they just write bold crap to get fans like us to go on their website and give them more page hits so that they can charge more for advertisements like banner ads.

Yep, web advertising 101. More page hits = more ad revenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paloosa

paloosa

Posted
Posted

Carucci and every other Redskins hating reporter will say what is reported without having having a good proven source of statistics to back them up. They just report anything negative when it comes to the Redskins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...