The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[Thinking Skins]

11 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

They weee 3-13 on third down and TH was 2 for 9 passing on 3rd down and one of those 2 completions didn’t result in a 1st down.

 

He doesn’t have the ability to keep drives alive.  When they convert a high percentage of 3rd downs it’s because they run a lot in third and short.  
 

You’re confusing correlation with causation. 
 

The offense is looking more success because they run the ball more than pass, and they are playing good defense. 
 

TH makes a few plays a game.  He made several last week.  
 

Bur let’s not confuse what’s driving the success to who’s benefiting from the success. 
 

And again, with the team winning, you don’t make a change.  But that doesn’t change anything about TH. 

OK,  take a look at the drive stats from the first 10 games (not counting yesterday because they're not up yet). 

EDIT: I've updated this with The Houston Game now. 

 

Every game the drives have been sorted by the drive length.

Here are the games under Wentz

JAX - 35.25 yards per drive: -1, 0, 3, 7, 11 ,14, 18, 58, 71, 74, 78, 90

DET - 27.07 yards per drive: -3, -3, 0, 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 26, 64, 76, 83, 94

PHI - 22.67 yards per drive: -10, -1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 23, 30, 87, 93

DAL - 18.92 yards per drive: -17, -5, 2, 12, 13, 13, 14, 19, 22, 30, 30, 48, 65

TEN - 35.67 yards per drive: -12, -1, -1, 6, 6, 20, 25, 40, 43, 75, 80, 87

CHI - 21.18 yards per drive: -5, 0, 4, 6, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27, 57, 65

 

Now here are the games under Heinicke

GB - 34.63 yards per drive: 0, 0, 7, 14, 14, 23, 33, 61, 72, 74, 83

IND - 32.91 yards per drive: -8, 0, 5, 20, 20, 25, 25, 29, 75, 82, 89

MIN - 25 yards per drive: -5, -1, 5, 12, 19, 19, 30, 37, 44, 52, 78

PHI - 36 yards per drive: -2, 6, 8, 10, 30, 32, 49, 66, 75, 86

HOU - 33.3 yards per drive: 1, 4, 11, 20, 20, 31, 36, 54, 71, 85

 

That's a clear improvement. Now the clear thing is that the lack of negative drives.

Under Wentz, there were

 - 11 (ELEVEN) drives of negative yards (implying sacks early and forcing the pass and incompletions and three and outs).

 - 14 drives of zero or negative yards, and

 - 30 drives of less than 10 yards. 

 

Under Heinicke there were

 - 4 drives of negative yards

 - 7 drives of zero or negative yards

 - 12 drives of less than 10 yards. 

 

Then we can look at the "field position" drives. These are the drives that we can either take down the field to get a FG or take it to shift field position to get a good put that could (but won't always) pin them deep. 

Look at the distribution of Carson's Drives: 

Under 10 Yards: (30) -17,-12,-10,-5,-5,-3,-3,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1,2,3,3,4,4,4,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,8,

10 to 20 yards: (14) 10,11,12,13,13,13,14,14,14,15,18,18,19,19,

20 to 30 yards: (8) 20,20,22,22,23,25,26,27,

30 to 40 yards: (3) 30,30,30

40 to 50 yards: (3) ,40,43,48,

50 to 60 yards: (2) 57,58,

60 to 70 yards: (3) 64,65,65,

70 to 80 yards: (5) 71,74,75,76,78,

80 to 90 yards: (4) 80,83,87,87,

90 + yards: (3) 90,93,94

 

 

Now the drives under Heinicke

Under 10 Yards: (14) -8,-5,-2,-1,0,0,0,1, 4, 5,5,6,7,8,

10 to 20 yards: (7) 10,11,12,14,14,19,19,

20 to 30 yards: (8) 20, 20, 20,20,23,25,25,29,

30 to 40 yards: (7) 30,30,31,32,33,36,37,

40 to 50 yards: (2) 44,49,

50 to 60 yards: (2) 52,54

60 to 70 yards: (2) 61,66,

70 to 80 yards: (5) 71,72,74,75,75,78,

80 to 90 yards: (5) 82,83,85,86,89

90 + yards: (0)

 

So when we go above 20 yard drives, he has similar number of productive drives. Its not exact but we wouldn't expect it in fewer games. People say its moxie, but I think its more about his understanding of the offense and getting guys in the right spots and clearing things up, and giving receivers one on one a chance. But this is a measurable stat. 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Thinking Skins

[DJHJR86]

Can we change the title of this thread to "From Wentz He Came"?

[goskins10]

28 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Yea, this exactly.

 

It's pretty clear Taylor is keeping the job the remainder of 2022.

 

What I'm not seeing is any language about what this means for his future here because they did try to replace him two offseasons in a row.

 

It really depends on how the season plays out...I really don't see Wentz back here in 2023 unless the plan is to let Taylor walk in the offseason.

 

At this point, I almost don't even want to think about this offseason because it has all the makings for a very ugly one at the most important position on the roster.  Expect everyone to be pissed for different reasons, Taylor will be 30 the start of camp next year, you can't "develop" a 30 year old QB, he is who he is.

 

That's not true. In fact they signed him to a 2 yr contract. He is the BACKUP. And they know he is the backup. His value is as a backup. They did not try to replace the backup. What they tried to do is get a legitimate starter. It did not work out, again. But that does not mean they were trying to replace TH. 

 

No one that I have seen, outside a few truly crazed TH fans, have even suggested he be the long term solution. So like before you are arguing a point not up for discussion. TH is NOT the long term solutioin. And he is not in anyone's plans to be that.

 

But niether should Carson Wentz. I know he is your guy becasuse you tihnk he has not been given a fair chance. But while he is more physically gifted, he does not have the right mentality to win games for teams. When they need him most he crumbles. When the team needs TH most he tends to rise to the occacsion, even if half the time he is the reason they are in that spot. 

 

They will be in the market for a franchise QB next offseason. I hope it's in the draft. For some reason you have written that off as a not possible. We will see. A lot will depend on the draft position and the final record/results for this years team.

 

 

[Est.1974]

11 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

The fact that they are going to make him inactive once Wentz is healthy should tell you all you need to know about Howell at this point.

At this point yes, in terms of down the road I don’t think we know enough yet.

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

At this point yes, in terms of down the road I don’t think we know enough yet.

 

DJ's whole argument is silly.

 

Yes, once Wentz is healthy Howell is the obvious choice to be inactive. He is a rookie with zero NFL snaps that they are trying not to put into the game "too early" in his career. Why, then, would you make him active over Wentz who has been a pro for about a decade? It doesn't make sense yet. Even if he is good. They are taking their time with him.

 

It's logical. It's not a knock on Howell. It's just common sense. I don't know why people read so far into things that there is nothing to read in to. 

[Renegade7]

Just now, Thinking Skins said:

 

So when we go above 20 yard drives, he has similar number of productive drives. Its not exact but we wouldn't expect it in fewer games. People say its moxie, but I think its more about his understanding of the offense and getting guys in the right spots and clearing things up, and giving receivers one on one a chance. But this is a measurable stat. 

 

Is it fair to say that's not what any of us saw the first 58 minutes of the Colts game this year?

 

It jus feels like we all twisting ourselves into a pretzel trying to use stats to explain why Taylor should or should not be starting right now. 

 

Folks outside DC are seeing and saying the same thing.  For every stat there's a high level big picture to call it into question, it really is rare to see a team win like ours with this amount of inconsistent to bad QB play...to point the only way is for the whole team to help carry him on occasion or for the entire game if need be, and Taylor jus enough not to negate it.

 

Even his TD to Turnover ration is damn near even this year, Brad Johnson on the 2002 Bucs for example was 3:2 with a 22/7 TD to Int ratio, so yea, it's absolutely as mind blowing as we all think it is.

[DJHJR86]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

It's logical. It's not a knock on Howell. It's just common sense. I don't know why people read so far into things that there is nothing to read in to. 

 

Well if Howell was remotely close to being ready, you would keep him as the backup and keep Wentz inactive.  Because you know what you've got in Wentz and it's 'meh'.  Based off of everything the local guys have been reporting, he's not even remotely close to being ready.  

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Folks outside DC are seeing and saying the same thing.

 

Folks outside of DC are wondering why we traded for Wentz in the first place at this point.

[KDawg]

Just now, DJHJR86 said:

 

Well if Howell was remotely close to being ready, you would keep him as the backup and keep Wentz inactive.  Because you know what you've got in Wentz and it's 'meh'.  Based off of everything the local guys have been reporting, he's not even remotely close to being ready.  

 

No. That's not how sports/business works. Wentz is being paid $28M. He has 10 TD and 6 INT on THIS season. In 5 games.

 

Howell is a rookie who they are trying to develop that they don't want to throw to the fire right away.

 

C'mon, man.

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

That's not true. In fact they signed him to a 2 yr contract. He is the BACKUP. And they know he is the backup. His value is as a backup. They did not try to replace the backup. What they tried to do is get a legitimate starter. It did not work out, again. But that does not mean they were trying to replace TH. 

 

No one that I have seen, outside a few truly crazed TH fans, have even suggested he be the long term solution. So like before you are arguing a point not up for discussion. TH is NOT the long term solutioin. And he is not in anyone's plans to be that.

 

But niether should Carson Wentz. I know he is your guy becasuse you tihnk he has not been given a fair chance. But while he is more physically gifted, he does not have the right mentality to win games for teams. When they need him most he crumbles. When the team needs TH most he tends to rise to the occacsion, even if half the time he is the reason they are in that spot. 

 

They will be in the market for a franchise QB next offseason. I hope it's in the draft. For some reason you have written that off as a not possible. We will see. A lot will depend on the draft position and the final record/results for this years team.

 

 

 

Feel like we saying the same thing...its clear they didn't want him to be the starter the following season he ended as the starter. Why Fitz was brought in one offseason, then Wentz the next.

 

Saying they weren't trying to replace him as the backup doesn't do this conversation justice, you know that's not what we're talking about, right?

 

Stop saying Wentz is my guy, I'm trying to be pragmatic here knowing Taylor isn't the guy and wanting to avoid this 2023 conundrum we are diving head first into anyway.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Is it fair to say that's not what any of us saw the first 58 minutes of the Colts game this year?

 

It jus feels like we all twisting ourselves into a pretzel trying to use stats to explain why Taylor should or should not be starting right now. 

 

Folks outside DC are seeing and saying the same thing.  For every stat there's a high level big picture to call it into question, it really is rare to see a team win like ours with this amount of inconsistent to bad QB play...to point the only way is for the whole team to help carry him on occasion or for the entire game if need be, and Taylor jus enough not to negate it.

 

Even his TD to Turnover ration is damn near even this year, Brad Johnson on the 2002 Bucs for example was 3:2 with a 22/7 TD to Int ratio, so yea, it's absolutely as mind blowing as we all think it is.

 

Standig had a good point about this this morning.  He did not say it exactly the way I do it here but he said the same thing in a different way.

 

A. NFL Qbs not like what they typically are this season with the decline of Rodgers, Brady.  He didn't say Wilson but he's declining too.  Ryan isn't what he once was.   Dak has started slow, etc.

 

B.  You can win with defense more this season than the typical season.  Heck althought the Giants had a lemon game against the Lions yesterday -- they are winning with a similar formula, defense and running game.

 

I'd add you need some mobility these days to escape some of the better fronts in today's NFL.

 

Hence Taylor is OK since he doesn't have to lead the dance.  Personally I think there are limits to it but if the defense can dominate and the RBs can grind yards -- Heinicke just needs to make some plays here and there and not screw up the symphony. 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Thinking Skins]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Is it fair to say that's not what any of us saw the first 58 minutes of the Colts game this year?

 

It jus feels like we all twisting ourselves into a pretzel trying to use stats to explain why Taylor should or should not be starting right now. 

 

Folks outside DC are seeing and saying the same thing.  For every stat there's a high level big picture to call it into question, it really is rare to see a team win like ours with this amount of inconsistent to bad QB play...to point the only way is for the whole team to help carry him on occasion or for the entire game if need be, and Taylor jus enough not to negate it.

 

Even his TD to Turnover ration is damn near even this year, Brad Johnson on the 2002 Bucs for example was 3:2 with a 22/7 TD to Int ratio, so yea, it's absolutely as mind blowing as we all think it is.

Did you not see the drive analysis I just did. Even against the Colts, we were moving the ball. We had 20+ yards on every drive until the 3rd quarter. We weren't putting up points yet but we were not looking like the Detroit game. Taylor's worse yards per drive was against the Vikings with 25. That beats Wentz's games against the Bears (21) Cowboys (19) and Eagles (23). I'm not saying we are world beaters under Heinicke, just that he's better at moving the ball consistently. Wentz is really all or nothing. And I don't mean the bonehead plays. I mean that he's getting the drives with less than 10 yards are double the rate of Heinicke. That's what I saw watching the games and I didn't see a stat to measure it (its not just third down conversions). But we can calculate it and its right there for us to see. 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

 

Folks outside of DC are wondering why we traded for Wentz in the first place at this point.

 

Because they only pay attention to the team when we are winning, anyone that saw how last season ended could see clear as day we needed an upgrade over Taylor.

 

We still do, so seeing national folks saying we should've started the season with Taylor is just a ridiculous disingenuous hot take on our current QB situation.

1 minute ago, Thinking Skins said:

Did you not see the drive analysis I just did. Even against the Colts, we were moving the ball. We had 20+ yards on every drive until the 3rd quarter. We weren't putting up points yet but we were not looking like the Detroit game. Taylor's worse yards per drive was against the Vikings with 25. That beats Wentz's games against the Bears (21) Cowboys (19) and Eagles (23). I'm not saying we are world beaters under Heinicke, just that he's better at moving the ball consistently. Wentz is really all or nothing. And I don't mean the bonehead plays. I mean that he's getting the drives with less than 10 yards are double the rate of Heinicke. That's what I saw watching the games and I didn't see a stat to measure it (its not just third down conversions). But we can calculate it and its right there for us to see. 

 

I did see it, all those yards and drive charts, man, that entire game I was feeling sick to my stomach thinking we were going to lose.  My point is saying this and that about the stats doesn't do the heat of the moment reality that we barely got out of their alive justice. 

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Standig had a good point about this this morning.  He did not say it exactly the way I do here but he said the same thing in a different way.

 

A. NFL Qbs not like what they typically are this season with the decline of Rodgers, Brady.  He didn't say Wilson but he's declining too.  Ryan isn't what he once was.   Dak has started slow, etc.

 

B.  You can win with defense more this season than the typical season.  Heck althought the Giants had a lemon game against the Lions yesterday -- they are winning with a similar formula, defense and running game.

 

I'd add you need some mobility these days to escape some of the better fronts in today's NFL.

 

Hence Taylor is OK since he doesn't have to lead the dance.  Personally I think there are limits to it but if the defense can dominate and the RBs can grind yards -- Heinicke just needs to make some plays here and there and not screw up the symphony. 

 

I hear you, but honestly this feels more like a state of affairs for the NFC, not the AFC or NFL as a whole.

 

There's a rouges gallery of young deadly QBs in that conference (AFC) that I'm not convinced our style of play would survive. 

 

Ravens seem like a candidate to follow, Bengals are a game back and could at any moment flip standings with them.

 

Taylor is no Lamar, though...

[Thinking Skins]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Because they only pay attention to the team when we are winning, anyone that saw how last season ended could see clear as day we needed an upgrade over Taylor.

 

We still do, so seeing national folks saying we should've started the season with Taylor is just a ridiculous disingenuous hot take on our current QB situation.

 

I did see it, all those yards and drive charts, man, that entire game I was feeling sick to my stomach thinking we were going to lose.  My point is saying this and that about the stats doesn't do the heat of the moment reality that we barely got out of their alive justice. 

AAh, I get that. What I was seeing was the ball still moving. Part of that was the running game and the short passes, but even with us not doing much on offense early we weren't down until the 4th quarter. And when we went down 9 or 10, I had doubts but we drive right down and score a FG so I had some confidence. That Interception was the thing that frustrated me the most because it gave them life. 

[mhd24]

Heineke should have had 2 more ints yesterday.  My preference is to play Howell and see what we have in him or go back to Wentz (after ensuring that we keep our 2nd rounder).

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I hear you, but honestly this feels more like a state of affairs for the NFC, not the AFC or NFL as a whole.

 

There's a rouges gallery of young deadly QBs in that conference (AFC) that I'm not convinced our style of play would survive. 

 

Ravens seem like a candidate to follow, Bengals are a game back and could at any moment flip standings with them.

 

Taylor is no Lamar, though...

 

Agree, NFC, but that's the conference by a mile most relevant to us. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

36 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

So when we go above 20 yard drives, he has similar number of productive drives. Its not exact but we wouldn't expect it in fewer games. People say its moxie, but I think its more about his understanding of the offense and getting guys in the right spots and clearing things up, and giving receivers one on one a chance. But this is a measurable stat. 

That’s quite the catalog and effort you put into that, but at what point do you factor the two entirely different strategies being deployed by the OC?

 

I’m not saying there are no intangibles to consider with Heinicke.  He’s definitely more familiar with the playbook, where guys should be, and he clearly moves better than Wentz. 
 

With Wentz it was clear that Scott wanted to air it out and utilize the arm he’s been sorely missing.  That is going to lead to stalled drives, more holding calls, etc.  Wentz also had a lot less time to absorb and master Scott’s playbook and gain any sort of cohesion with him as a playcaller.  Add to the fact that he had very little time to build a rapport with Terry. 

As opposed to Heinicke, whose best attribute is his familiarity with Scott’s system, that a Harvard grad who played in more than a handful of systems admitted was tough to learn.  Heinicke also has built in rapport with Terry. 
 

Bottom line, I don’t think it’s complicated or complex to figure out why we’ve sustained longer drives with Heinicke.  It all starts and ends with each players ability to run Scott’s system and Turners willingness to wildly adapt between the two skill sets.

[DJHJR86]

26 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Howell is a rookie who they are trying to develop that they don't want to throw to the fire right away.

 

I want to see Howell at some point.  Rivera himself said that he considered putting Howell in due to caution over Heinicke, but decided to run the ball instead.  They are terrified of playing Howell.  This is Colt Brennan 2.0 all over again.  If he was really a first round pick who fell to us miraculously, he wouldn't be inactive.  Heinicke probably wouldn't even be on this roster if that were the case.  

[Skinsinparadise]

I am out on both Wentz and Taylor as the solution albiet i like Taylor as a backup.  I am at this point pro Taylor over Wentz though as to starting at this point in the season unless the wheels fall off which is always possible.

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree, NFC, but that's the conference by a mile most relevant to us. 

 

Fair...jus in my head, I'm not sure if this is an anomoly,, a trend, or a window yet.  

 

If it is a window, it feels like false hope for a championship because it's not impossible to forsee a situation where during this window any team coming out the NFC in January could get ****-slapped by the AFC team.

 

The Eagles right now may put up a fight, but every time I give Kirk his flowers he turns around and ****s himself like he did yesterday at home against Dallas. I'm not sure who Dak is anymore. 

 

The reason why this conversation on this being a window or not is important because those young budding stars on defense won't stay on rookie contracts forever.  What I saw this offseason was a cap situation that didn't match the rhetoric of the team planners because it wasn't ready for all the sudden getting a QB contract of Wentz size.

 

You've noted the cap is fittin to spike upwards soon, because this first time in a long time I didn't feel confident in our franchise ability to keep our cap in a flexible situation for whatever it is we wanted or needed to do.  All the sudden the black cat fell on its back instead of its feet.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Renegade7

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

I want to see Howell at some point.  Rivera himself said that he considered putting Howell in due to caution over Heinicke, but decided to run the ball instead.  They are terrified of playing Howell.  This is Colt Brennan 2.0 all over again.  If he was really a first round pick who fell to us miraculously, he wouldn't be inactive.  Heinicke probably wouldn't even be on this roster if that were the case.  

 

You are reading wayyyyyyyy too far into this. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, DJHJR86 said:

 

They are terrified of playing Howell.  This is Colt Brennan 2.0 all over again. 

 

Listening to Keim among others, i don't think they are terrified.  Feels like 2 things in play.

 

A. do you experiment with a team in the hunt for the playoffs?  most teams would not.  If they get eliminated the odds to see Howell I think is pretty high

 

B.  Most young Qbs need time to develop and learn.  Learn the system among other things.  Turner's system from what i've gathered isn't the same as North Carolina.  Heck according to some Wentz hasn't fully learned the system.  Give Howell some time to learn it, work ouit the kinks in his own game with Zampese -- its better to give him time than rush him in the line of fire.

 

 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Listening to Keim among others, i don't think they are terrified.  Feels like 2 things in play.

 

A. do you experiment with a team in the hunt for the playoffs?  most teams would not.  If they get eliminated the odds to see Howell I think is pretty high

 

 

 

 

 

Bingo. As long as they are in contention they are going to protect the rookie QB with two veterans and not hinge their success and put all that pressure on him and, quite frankly, the team wouldn't be thrilled being in the playoff hunt (like right now when Wentz is getting healthy) and elevating the rookie over the veteran. It doesn't make sense even if Howell is playing really well. He hasn't shown a thing on the field yet. 

 

If they are eliminated we will likely see Howell.

[Thinking Skins]

6 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

That’s quite the catalog and effort you put into that, but at what point do you factor the two entirely different strategies being deployed by the OC?

 

I’m not saying there are no intangibles to consider with Heinicke.  He’s definitely more familiar with the playbook, where guys should be, and he clearly moves better than Wentz. 
 

With Wentz it was clear that Scott wanted to air it out and utilize the arm he’s been sorely missing.  That is going to lead to stalled drives, more holding calls, etc.  Wentz also had a lot less time to absorb and master Scott’s playbook and gain any sort of cohesion with him as a playcaller.  Add to the fact that he had very little time to build a rapport with Terry. 

As opposed to Heinicke, whose best attribute is his familiarity with Scott’s system, that a Harvard grad who played in more than a handful of systems admitted was tough to learn.  Heinicke also has built in rapport with Terry. 
 

Bottom line, I don’t think it’s complicated or complex to figure out why we’ve sustained longer drives with Heinicke.  It all starts and ends with each players ability to run Scott’s system and Turners willingness to wildly adapt between the two skill sets.

Yeah  this is where I diverge from the whole debate. I am not pro-Heinicke or pro-Wentz. I can see the difference in their styles of play and what's going on with them and say some maybe's, but I don't think its fair to Heinicke to say we can't win with him. We're 9-4 with him as starter in our last 13 games where he started. We know he doesn't have Wentz's arm but he is still putting up similar production to Wentz. Wentz had no running game and had a hurt Robinson and no other bruiser behind him. 

 

The only notable difference between the two that works in Heinicke's favor is the lack of sacks. I pointed out the negative yard drives that the staggering number of less than 10 yard drives under Wentz, much of that is because of sacks he takes forcing us into a must pass system. Heinicke doesn't take those sacks and so we have more productive drives on teh regular. Not saying we're scoring more, but we're getting into a groove. That's all I've got. 

[DJHJR86]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

A. do you experiment with a team in the hunt for the playoffs?  most teams would not.  If they get eliminated the odds to see Howell I think is pretty high

 

B.  Most young Qbs need time to develop and learn.  Learn the system among other things.  Turner's system from what i've gathered isn't the same as North Carolina.  Heck according to some Wentz hasn't fully learned the system.  Give Howell some time to learn it, work ouit the kinks in his own game with Zampese -- its better to give him time than rush him in the line of fire.

 

 

A. is fair and I would agree.  

 

Given the tone from media folks, especially Keim, I would be shocked if we saw Howell at all this year.