DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Kizer Rnd 7

To use your favorite thing .... ...

He was 16 - 30 .... 16 - 30 .... 16 - 30 ....

He missed WIDE OPEN RECIEVERS MULTIPLE TIMES ....

For me personally ... I highly doubt theres ever been a QB that threw for a 50% completion rate and i said he played LIGHTS OUT .... but thats just me ... u may have different standards than i do ... ...

He was playing against BACK UPS ..... u fail to mention that in your little pimping of Kizer ...

PS. I don’t dislike Kizer ... i want him on the team next year ... i just dont bash him for the sake of bashing him ... matter of fact ... i’m Not sure i;ve ever bashed him ... theres a HUGE DIFFERENCE between me blasting U for how u prop him up with stats and me blasting him ...

I want a vet and hopefully our #1 spent on a QB .. BUT THEN AGAIN I SAID THAT SINCE BEFORE THE SEASON STARTED .... so it has nothing to do with what took place on the field this year ... its been my stance since day 1, its not my stance cause u think i have Kizer for some reason ...

The Steelers only rested Cam Hayward on the defensive side. I really want to get on your side, but all you confirmed is that you didn't watch the game, because they only rested the offense so you've confirmed for us that you didn't watch the game.

I failed to mention it because it isn't a fact: Something that doesn't seem to trouble you.

If U think anyone could possibly play lights out going 16 - 30 while MISSING MULTIPLE WIDE OPEN RECIEVERS ... your words, not mine ... then God Bless U ... we definetly have a different definition of the words LIGHTS OUT when it comes to qb play ...

U can try and spin and deflect all u want ... thats what this convo is about ...

PS. U do realize that all active players don’t play in situations like this ... like lets take the Iggles ... Foles started .. played 3 series .. then his BACK UP PLAYED THE REST OF THE WAY ... like a lot of their starters ...

I watched the game ... but nice try .. all u did was prove u don’t have a real good grasp of the difference between a player BEING ACTIVE and actual PLAYING TIME ...

Try and stay on point ...

LIGHTS OUT is the topic of this discussion ...

PS. He still did it against there BACK UPS!!! Your best argument here menZa is they weren’t all BACK UPS ...

You got caught lying about something you're completely ignorant of. Not surmised you're embarrassed. Continue lying. Leave the discussion to people who actually know the facts.

Well 16 of 30 is over 50%. By one pass.....

Surely that qualifies for lights out play, right? lmao

oooooops ... my bad ... ..

U best watch out for me Pit .. i’m an EMBERRESED LIAR ....

Just waiting on you to explain what back-ups he went against.

Either that, or admit you didn't watch the game and outright lied about something your ignorant of....

I just mean that one game. You don't need to admit your ignorance of football in general, regardless of how well the shoe fits.

Lots of ways I could go here ... i’ll choose this path ...

Your barking up the wrong tree on 3 or 4 different fronts here Mr. LIGHTS OUT ...

Enjoy your day my fellow dawg ... u live in a GREAT COUNTRY with lots of friendly people, please go enjoy it ....

Once again, you avoid the answer because you're wrong. The Steelers didn't start back-ups on defense. It's fine to make a mistake, but I've seen few people so shamelessly unwilling to admit when they get it wrong. Pathetic, really.

Not cool to launch a personal attack on me with a lie, then stand by that lie when it's pointed out.

Personal attack ..... ...

Please ... go quote me and show me where the personal attack is ...

There’s nothing even close to a personal attack from me ...

Go ahead and call me a liar again ... then i’ll choose a different path ...

Your in WAY WAY WAY over your head .....

Never mind ... this is so not worth it ....

Go ahead and continue with your little snit without me ...

Enjoy your day dude ... BYE BYE for now ...

Maybe you need to explain how going 16-30 is playing lights out? I mean that was your original statement.

Hurry up with the facts then. Go your different path. Show me the back-ups and stop dancing around your lie.



You accused me of intentionally disregarding important information in an effort to "little pimp" Kizer. That's personal.

Please, correct me. I'm trying to talk football with you here, so your different path is welcome. Show me the back-ups, or stop talking.

How is 375 yards and 2 TD a bad performance simply because he only went 16/30?
I never said it was a perfect performance, but that level of production is admirable to anyone who is objectively assessing the information.

You're fronting like 375 yards is a standard game. That's an incredible level of production for any quarterback, much less a rookie.

Hey, if in your mind 16-30 is playing lights out, we certainly have a different definition of that term. lol

So you're upset with the completion percentage alone because you can't be upset with the yardage and touchdowns? That's adorable.

It wasn't a good game for Kizer ... he missed a lot of plays. Making some plays and then missing on others isn't the definition of good.... consistency is part of being good. I think PFF had him rated about a 47 ....

Of course PFF gave him an awful grade. Dude had 375 yards and 2 touchdowns but he's a Cleveland Brown. If he played for any other team, he'd have received an infinite grade.

Is anyone really going to say that Kizer played worse this week than Trubisky did last week, when they gave him an incredible 82.6?

Nah. Dudes are lazy on the Browns grades.

And, again, where are the missed plays? There few missed throws somehow not only overshadow an incredibly productive game, but don't move the needle to even make it a slightly below average game?

Another other quarterback puts up 375 yards and 2 touchdowns, there is no way it's graded as a near historically bad performance. PFF can suck it.

LIGHTS OUT are the actual words ....

He played LIGHTS OUT according to u know who ...

Well I have been known to be adorable. Thank you for noticing.

If 16-30 is playing lights out, which was what you stated, then throwing for 60% in one game must make you a franchise QB.

Kizer has definitely improved from Game 1 to Game 17, no doubt. In my opinion, he rose from God Awful to just plain awful. Sure he had his moments all year with some great passes and runs and decent games that left a smile on your face and a gleam of hope in your eye, only to blow chunks the very next game. He had a 53.6 completion percentage this year which is 7% below his 60% in college...both suck.

Sure he had an OK game against the Steelers but how many worm burners or overthrows did he toss? Very Derek Anderson-esque.

For the Browns sake, I hope he gets a lot better and fast but there is no way I would bank my future on him being a starter next year. In my opinion, he has a very long way to go and may never get there.

Even if its against a 12 - 3 team thats a division rival playing against their BACK UPS? ..... ...

This is your fault Pit ... that was just too good a set up to pass on .... *LOL* ...

It wasn't being lazy or hating on the Browns.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-refocused-pittsburgh-steelers-28-cleveland-browns-24

QB DESHONE KIZER, 47.3 OVERALL GRADE
Even though Kizer’s deep corner pass to Gordon was one of the highlights of his rookie season, Cleveland’s signal-caller had a disappointing performance on Sunday afternoon and was fortunate to not turn the ball over more than once. Kizer had multiple dropped interceptions as he completed just one pass on his 14 dropbacks under pressure and had a passer rating of 0.0 when Pittsburgh’s pass-rush got to him.

Personally I find PFF to be very fair .... during Kizer's best game of the year vs Bengals, here is what they wrote....

QB DESHONE KIZER, 91.0 OVERALL GRADE
Kizer made a handfull of big time throws in this one. On throws 10-plus yards down the field, Kizer completed 7-of-11 for 181 yards – and that doesn’t even include the dropped touchdown from Corey Coleman. It was by far the most encouraging performance of Kizer’s rookie season.

.... What wouldn't make a lot of sense to me is to accept what they say because you like it and dismiss it the next week because you don't. In the game against the Steelers, which for the first time all year I stopped watching at halftime because I was so sickened - he threw balls that should have been intercepted but weren't. Good for Kizer's stat line but does that mean he played well?

Hue says publicly that he has the biggest say when it comes to QB's. If he is going to say that then he gets to own it. I know you desperately want to pin it on someone else, anyone else, but you have to take the guy at his word.

"Trust him on this one"

The other guy doesn't have a job because the guy you hold blameless coordinated an email campaign against him in order to save his own job.

Not sure I want to step into this mess, but your actual words were that he was playing against back-ups as well.

I don't think he played lights out, but he played against the first string defense the entire game. Our defense played against a bunch of back-ups. Accountability goes two ways.

I like PFF, and I've quoted them plenty on here, but their consistency is shocking.

Seriously, he played twice as well against the Bengals as he did the Steelers? That's silly. He played fantastic against the Bengals, but I struggle to see how 375 yards and 2 touchdowns is twice as bad as 18/31 for 268 yards + 9 rushes for 39 yards and 1 TD.

Personally, I think PFF over-intellectualize themselves far too much. For example, during the Steelers game they knocked Kizer for being 1/8 for 14 yards and 1 interception on pressured throws, while 15/22 for 299 yards and 2 TD when kept clean. However, as has been pointed out, they disregard the use of legs when under pressure and their definition of pressure is largely inconsistent because you only need to turn on the highlights to see Kizer making throws under pressure. But, they knock the overall game when feeling like they pointed out something detrimental within the pressure - that's fine on evaluation of characteristics, but within the context of a game played it becomes weird.

Admittedly, I'm also pissed at them for basically saying Garrett played average. That's insane. He was utterly dominant against a top tackle but they didn't want to knock a higher-rated Steelers LT so they shut up.

You know you're desperate when you find a single statistic and think that justifies a laughable perspective.

Just want to point out if I did the same thing, I'd be getting the "STATS R 4 LOSERS" treatment, which miraculously doesn't apply at the moment.

Well you are trying to prop up your argument by manipulating stats.

You and Diam go this route so often.

I literally posted his entire stat line from the box score. Nothing left out, posted as written.

In what regard is that manipulation of stats? I'd understand that accusation if you caught me rounding the numbers up, or adding an extra touchdown, etc. But no. I just posted them as is.

What part of that is manipulation?

The problem is you totally exaggerated things in your statement. Surely you can understand that. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Did it seem like he played better in his last game? I would say yes, he did. I'm not trying to deny that. But to say he "played light out" is a reach of epic proportions.

I could get petty with this.

Our rookie QB next year, I'm calling "awful" in every game he fails to put up multiple touchdowns and over 375 yards. I can use any single statistic to justify this. Be that passer rating, completion percentage or YPA. Any one number that isn't great, while ignoring anything that was.

I'm also allowed to claim he faced only back-up players, even if that is completely false.

I get the feeling that will be "over and above" a lot more than saying 375 yards and 2 touchdowns is lights out - which it is.

Okay, what numbers did I exaggerate? Do enlighten me as to how I manipulated the numbers.

That's a pretty serious accusation. Back it up, for once.

You do realize there's miles of difference between lights out and awful, right? That's where the disconnect is. Kizer improved and he looked better. But he certainly didn't play lights out.

Lights out is the exaggeration, not his numbers.

I'm waiting on what was "exaggerated" and "manipulated" but you keep desperately trying to bring it that simply meaning you don't like the fact I used the phrase "lights out."

It's weird, because it's the most lame thing to be upset about.

It's funny you use the word upset when actually I'm amused by it.

It's actually rather comical that a QB throws for one pass over 50% and someone would call that a lights out performance. I guess you just don't get how funny that sounds.

Jc

So, we ended up having the 10th hardest schedule in the league, which we started the youngest QB in the league against.

Kizer: 15 games, 476 attempts, 53%, 2,894 yards, 11 TDs, 22 picks, 6.08 yards per pass
77 rushes, 419 yards, 5.4 a carry, 5 TDs

The bears had the hardest schedule in the nfl

Trubisky: 12 games, 330 attempts, 59%, 2,193 yards, 7 TDs, 7 picks, 6.65 yards per pass
44 rushes, 248 yards, 6 a carry, 2 TDs

Kizer was 19th in attempts, 24th in yards, last in completion %, 29th in yards per pass, 29th in TDs, last(first however you want to look at it) in interceptions, took the 8th most sacks, last in QB rating, 28th in yards per game (193)

Trubisky was 28th in attempts, 28th in yards, 27th in completion %, 24th in yards per pass, tied for 32nd in TDs, tied for 8th with fewest INT, 15th in sacks, 28th in In QB rating, and 31st in yards per game (183)

_____________

So, obviously stats don’t tell the whole story, but it’s a good baseline to start with.

What I noticed was how similar the stats are, even though one was completely thrown to the wolves, while the other was completely babied the entire season.

The bears ran the ball constantly week in and week out. We did not. There’s obviously way more to consider, but just on the surface, for one being picked in the 2nd round, and the other 3rd overall, just based on the numbers, plus how the games went down, I wonder how Trubisky would be talked about around here since they posted similar numbers.

Would we be saying draft another QB? Or would we roll with Trubisky?

I'm just making the point. It's such a weird thing to be pissed about, especially when it comes to a rookie. That's a fantastic performance that I'd take every week because it's lights out. Literally every week, because that much yardage every week is 6,000 yards and 32 touchdowns on the season.

Besides, even if "lights out" is hyperbole, who cares. You said over in the 'fixing the browns' thread that you'd trade Deshone Kizer for a bag of apples. Nobody got on your case with an overly literal interpretation.

I completely disagree on accuracy. Mainly because Kizer struggled with his footwork and mechanics. This is something that can absolutely be worked on and corrected. Unless everything went perfectly, Kizer's fundamentals deteriorated, which in and of itself isn't uncommon from a rookie quarterback.

If he had perfect footwork and mechanics, I'd be inclined to agree, but there is a direct correlation between fundamentals and accuracy, so I think the kid has a fantastic opportunity to get to work this offseason and allow the coaches to asses his progress next year.

But, that's me, and we won't see eye to eye on that one. I don't like making sweeping conclusions on any young player.