re: Eason already looks like the starter IMO

We won a good number of those games *in spite of* GL, not because of him. The best you can say is he didn't outright lose games for you. Other than the Carolina game though, you really can't point to games where you can say he would have won them for you either. The pass to Reggie obviously a slight outlier there, but wasn't that just for a tie at that point, rather than an outright lead? I'm not sure based on how that game goes that we end up winning, but for sure a decent argument to be made. The inability to score touchdowns on the road and the abundance of underthrown/behind the receiver 5 yard completions on 3rd and 7 for example though just show me he doesn't have the ability to consistently put the team in a good place offensively. We could do a hell of a lot worse (ie. more turnovers), but I personally believe the upside to Eason outweighs the possible increase in turnovers.

If we say that a turnover is on average worth 4 points to the opposition (Smart's #):
GL was 12 TDs to 2 INTs - 72-8 = 66 points through the air. Or essentially 5.5 points per game. I have a hard time believing that Eason couldn't contribute around the level of Josh Rosen from 2015:
23 TDs to 11 INTs - 138 - 44 = 94
Sack totals for the 2 were similar GL - 11, JR - 15.

Simply put, while 2 INTs is an admirable number, the 12 TDs (with the majority of those coming at home - 10) is an atrocious total. It puts *so* much pressure on your defense to play perfect. If we were still playing football in 1995, those numbers are great. Unfortunately, offenses are just more likely to score. The "magic number" for an offense has shifted from low 20s to 29-33 points or so on average.

Additionally, here was a pretty interesting study on some of the metrics that tend to align with winning football games. While turnovers and field position are included there, they are *less* likely to contribute to wins than 3 factors where Eason should win out - Explosiveness, Efficiency (one of the worst 3rd down teams in football last year I believe), and Effectiveness (essentially scoring TDs in the redzone).

I don't put all of the ineffectiveness on the shoulders of Lambert. Some of that was bad scheme by Schotty, some of it was poor offensive line play, but ultimately what we saw was a QB that looked like a deer in the headlights often, so he short armed throws in the dirt at key points of games (no INT, but no value), got happy feet and just threw it away, and generally managed to make neither good nor "bad" decisions... simply he took the 'live to fight another drive' approach without providing real fire power to ever 'fight'. You can only get by on that for so long unless your defense is elite (and even still, Bama was quite strong last year and gave up a ton of points to Ole Miss for example).

quote:

---

Then he starts against Florida and god knows what happens...

---

I feel pretty confident, based on what I saw from that team against the rest of the schedule, that we lose that game regardless. Maybe we don't have the volume of turnovers, but we still allowed Treon Harris and Co. to rack up more yards than they should have. I imagine probably a ~10 point loss there even starting Lambert.