Started By
Message
re: Eason already looks like the starter IMO
Posted on 4/19/16 at 5:59 am to WG_Dawg
Posted on 4/19/16 at 5:59 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
Numbers dont' always tell the tale
No argument. They don't ALWAYS tell the tale, but they sure so go along way. Every QB gets saved by some drops by DBs, every QB also gets screwed by some dropped passes (he goes 11-1 as a starter if Reggie doesn't drop that one). He also set the NCAA record for completions in a row in a game and completion % in a game. 11 other teams played Carolina and none could do that....shite, how many QBs have played the game and played shitty defenses and no ones ever done that....
I agree, start Eason, but GL wasn't as bad as you all make him out to be. Our D left us in some bad spots and the play calling was not great last year. Chubb getting hurt didn't help matters and our WR corps last year was sub par. The OL was like a leaking damn that burst at times. Last season the guy went 10-2 and woulda been 11-1 if not for Reggie (or possibly Chubb getting hurt). Then he starts against Florida and god knows what happens...
This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 6:04 am
4
Posted on 4/19/16 at 7:54 am to IT_Dawg
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think you have to start Lambert at least for the UNC game. He's the know commodity. He won't win us that game but he most likely won't lose us the game either. A true freshman in his first college game has the very real chance of collapse. And it potentially could stunt his growth down the line. What Eason saw in Athens will be a far cray from what he will have after his arse in the Dome. I think he needs to be slowly worked in and start by week 3.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 12:31 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
Really? How many INTs did Lambert throw last year? Dude only lost 2 games all year last year (One to the eventual NCs and the other to a Game Chubb was hurt and had a lead). I still say start Eason, but some of you all need to check stats before you ramble off stupid shite.
I know the stats, dumb arse, but I also know that Lambert threw at least ten balls right to defenders who failed to make the catch. There were almost a handful in the Tennessee game. Eason sees the field better than Lambert and he has better accuracy so he should throw fewer picks.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 12:44 pm to Whiznot
quote:
Eason sees the field better than Lambert
And you know this how?
Posted on 4/19/16 at 1:24 pm to IT_Dawg
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).
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.
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.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 2:17 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
I feel pretty confident, based on what I saw from that team against the rest of the schedule, that we lose that game regardless
So if we go into that game starting Lambert and our only loss had been to Bama, you are "confident" we would still lose that game....because of what you saw out of that game? Now I know how to read the rest of your opinions moving forward
Posted on 4/19/16 at 2:31 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
guard a bunch of 6'5 guys with 60" wingspans
WTF? Our TE's are T-Rexs!!!
Posted on 4/19/16 at 2:58 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
So if we go into that game starting Lambert and our only loss had been to Bama, you are "confident" we would still lose that game....because of what you saw out of that game?
Well, first of all, I have the benefit of seeing how the defense performed in that game to make my assessment. If you ask me to disregard that, then I say we still had a puncher's chance, but that was operating under the assumption that I believed Pruitt had learned his lesson from the previous year in terms of how we played UF against the run with a mobile QB who was less of a passing threat. (Clearly, this was not the case.)
However, with no Chubb, and the performance that we saw from our offense in the two games leading up to it combined with the defensive performance that we actually saw, yes. It took a defensive score and a special teams score in the Tennessee game to keep that close. We failed to score a touchdown at home against a Mizzou team that was not particularly talented. If you dig beyond the raw scores in the other games, you see that outside the South Carolina game, the offense was not particularly efficient even in the lopsided wins against bad competition. As the season wore on, you saw more and more press man coverage with safeties crowding up as well, simply because there was little to no threat of a Lambert deep ball.
quote:
Now I know how to read the rest of your opinions moving forward
I also know everything I need to know about your reading comprehension skills: quote:
I feel pretty confident, based on what I saw from that team against the rest of the schedule, that we lose that game regardless
In no way did I imply that it was simply based on the games up to that point. The offense limped along the remainder of the season. I've already provided a comparison post previously of GL to Josh Rosen in another thread quite some time ago. Generally speaking, if you feel that you can at least get his level of performance, you're in better shape statistically starting Eason over Lambert. It doesn't mean that's guaranteed, but to focus on trying to win the east in 2016 with Lambert at the helm at the expense of not maximizing possible playtime for Eason, you may end up winning the east at the expense of having a worse situation in 17 where you still have a QB who doesn't have a year's worth of starts under his belt. I also just don't blanketly subscribe to the idea that Lambert gives you a better chance to win than Eason. I trust that Kirby and the coaches know what they're doing, so were they to start Lambert in Game 1, it's not like it's the end of the world, I just think that Eason is at his worst roughly equivalent to Lambert (given the relative scoring breakdown provided in my previous post accounting for higher turnover totals but higher TD numbers as well).
This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 4/19/16 at 3:07 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
he goes 11-1 as a starter if Reggie doesn't drop that one
Given how the second half of that game went, we would have needed a 2PC after that TD to have a real chance to win. Our defense disappeared in that game and I don't think they would have magically reappeared in overtime.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 4:19 pm to HinesvilleThrill
I think it's pretty clear that Eason sees the field really well.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 6:41 pm to Peter Buck
It's easy to see what the excitement is about. Taking the two sacks wasn't that great but he didn't throw a pick because of the pressure so there's that. He did a good job protecting the ball and he can definitely put the ball where it's supposed to go. He's gonna be a good one.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 9:55 pm to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
However those are those who are
I just wanted to say I fricking laughed out loud when I read that.
Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:24 am to Peter Buck
quote:
I think it's pretty clear that Eason sees the field really well.
I never said he didn't. My point was that this guy said Eason could see the field better than Lambert. There's no way to unequivocally say that after one spring practice scrimmage where Eason played against the 2's & 3's, saw very few blitzes, and never got under center.
Posted on 4/20/16 at 12:12 pm to HinesvilleThrill
How long has that Hinesville water been lead contaminated?
Posted on 4/20/16 at 12:24 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
GL wasn't as bad as you all make him out to be
Ignoring the many Ints that were dropped, just look at the numbers. Those are black and white, can't be skewed. They are literally what happened. No doubt he played the game of 4 lifetimes against SC, and nobody is taking that away from him. Next week we had a cupcake (southern). AFter that was bama. Here are his stats following the southern game:
bama: 10/24, 86 yards, 0/1
@ut: 15/32, 279 yards, 2/0
mizz: 23/32, 178 yards, 0/1
uk: 6/13, 64 yards, 1/0
@au: 12/17, 97 yards, 0/0
gsu: 16/25, 183 yards, 1/0
@gt: 18/25, 225 yards, 0/0
psu: 10/20, 115 yards, 1/0
Through the heart of the schedule, only twice did he throw for 200 yards. In three of hte games he threw for less than 100 yards. 5 TDs/2 Int over his last 8 games. That is awful.
I'm not going to pile on the guy and say he sucks, I'm just saying he doesn't (from what I see and read) give us the best chance to win games. He is going to be ultra ultra safe, throw for minimal yardage, and be fairly predictable. Ramsey and Eason at least will take some shots and stretch the field.
quote:
Our D left us in some bad spots
In 6 of those 8 games above, the defense gave up 17 points or less. AGainst missouri/auburn/gsu, games that went down to the final end, the defense gave up a grand total of 3 TDs.
quote:
Last season the guy went 10-2 and woulda been 11-1 if not for Reggie
I belive that reggie drop would have only tied the game. And again, it's nice to say he was 10-2 as a starter, but we won games despite our woeful QB play.
Posted on 4/20/16 at 12:54 pm to Whiznot
quote:
How long has that Hinesville water been lead contaminated?
How long have you spent on the wrong side of the river in Albany?
Posted on 4/20/16 at 7:18 pm to HinesvilleThrill
quote:
where Eason played against the 2's & 3's, saw very few blitzes, and never got under center.
He saw pressure in his face and he also got under center some.
Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:36 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
I belive that reggie drop would have only tied the game. And again, it's nice to say he was 10-2 as a starter, but we won games despite our woeful QB play.
Meh, I tried explaining that previously. It didn't seem to sink in.
To highlight the numbers a bit further, because who doesn't love beating a dead horse.
Georgia ranked 119th out of 128 at 3rd down conversion percentage (offense), at a 31% clip. Last place was at 25.4, first place at 51.7, so much closer to the bottom than the top.
Compare that to the defense, which was the 8th ranked unit at preventing 3rd down conversions for opponents at 28.9%
4th down conversion percentage for the offense a dismal 100th/128. Defense not much better at 73rd.
Redzone Offense - 99th based on percentage of opportunities ending in some kind of scoring play, but nearly 50% of those were FGs.
Redzone Defense - 3rd.
I mean, you can literally go through all of the possible stats that have any meaning and there is no way you can point to our offensive production and tell me that Greyson Lambert was responsible for delivering wins last season outside of South Carolina. Even though a record was set in the South Carolina game around consecutive completions, we didn't even rank in the top 50 schools in passing efficiency, a stat that one might expect Greyson Lambert to rate highly in given his penchant for throwing to the dump off short route.
Page 5 of 5
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News