No need to do that when you can just change the QB out to one that can read the blitz, change the protections as needed, and get the ball out. I imagine if you set up the best O line in the NFL, with the best receiving corps, and the best TE's, you could create a scenario that would make Hoyer look good.....by why go through all that trouble?
i think it is unprecedented. this is only week 1. can you name some of the teams that made a QB change after the first game of the season?
How many teams fail to start the best QB on their roster week 1 when they actually have that as an option? I'd imagine that's pretty unprecedented as well.
Mallett is definite higher upside...but he hasnt shown anything that is better than Hoyer's best. Mallett should have been starter from day 1 and Hoyer should never have been brought it, but that's purely because Hoyer doesnt give us a future, not because Hoyer is considerably worse than Mallett.
I strongly disagree. Hoyer's best still isn't very good. Hell in the 2 drives Mallett had last week, how many passes did he throw that Hoyer simply isn't capable of? 3? 4? Mallett looked better than Hoyer in preseason as well though some people have their opinions skewed by Cecil Shorts' YAC on one play (similar to how they think Mariota is the next coming based on YAC this past weekend) but overall Mallett looked more solid, and read opposing defenses better. Both had the same O lines, but Mallett was never sacked. There's a reason for that.
He's been on a bad 6-7 game streak...but the first half of last season, he was pretty good. I think he had about a 90-100 rating or so. And what did Mallett do in the preseason that was so good? He pretty much did nothing.
he's never been on a good streak. Bobby might not be the brightest tool in the shed, but you're making him look like Einstein. It's easy to say Hoyer played well in the early season last year, but have you done the due diligence to see who he played? is that crickets I hear? Yup, cause he played no one. He sucks - has limited upside and we just watched his best case upside (smith), eat his lunch and show us why he's better than hoyer on all levels.
It's probably hard to find an example of a journeyman starter that played as poorly in week 1 as Hoyer did to compare.
Crickets? He played 3 games against Baltimore and Pittsburgh (2)...and came away with a combined 110 rating (10+ ypa) between the 3 games. You just got b**** slapped. Sit down.
Four of his nine games were against playoff teams; he posted a 105.9 QB rating in those four games with zero INTs.
no son - look back at the list. He beat the steelers early in the season when they are always week and beat the Bengals late who are a joke of a team that somehow always makes the playoffs. In the Steelers game - he was pedestrian. He didn't "win" them the game. I'll give you that he was pretty good in his beating of that splendid Charlie Whitehurst of TN, but it's not like they were any good either. and don't flipping mention QBR. If that freaking useless stat wasn't put to rest with Schaub - I don't know what to say. This all comes down to one simple fact - then you can sit down - Hoyer sucks.
tell me how he did on the balance of the season. You don't measure in 4 game increments. You measure on the total. And when you catch a team can significantly impact your performance against them.
Why? Do you not know? The rest of us do... You said he played "no one" and promptly got your foot stuck in your mouth. Now, it's "so-and-so is this and so-and-so is that" - you're the latest in a long line of yeah-but'ers; always moving the goal post... Here's a novel idea: own it. You fired off a dumb comment and got called on it. Tap your chest and move on. No one here gives a **** if you're wrong; we give a **** if you double-down on wrong.
So now he didnt have a good game because he didnt "win them the game"? Huh? And I love the...he beat the Steelers when they werent good talk. He played them twice...and the 2nd time he played them, when I guess, the Steelers were getting better (?), the Browns won 31-10. And the Cincy team..."theyre not good, yet they always make the playoffs"...lol. Sure, Hoyer isnt the answer to our QB position, but to ignore some of the good things he's done on the football field is silly.
It's called sarcasm. Thankfully, BoB isn't like you or Kubiak or we would be riding out the decision to start Hoyer for a few more games. I know you said that you don't even like Hoyer but it turned out that some of us were right about BoB switching to Mallett. Freakin no-brainer anyway.
I was more or less making a joke. But I still think keeping Fitz and not signing Hoyer would have made more sense.
