ehhhhhhhh..... did you watch the game? rosenfels threw an INT at the 1 that would have tied the score at 7. he threw another INT in baltimore territory on first down trailing 19-6 - that's at least 10 points he left on the field right there, possibly 14. he threw a 3rd pick inside his own 30 with the team trailing by 14, helping push the lead to 21 three plays later. he then threw ANOTHER pick, this one inside the 20 - three plays later, it's 41-13. so he was almost entirely responsible for a 24-point swing. i would think a 17-13 loss would be a lot easier to swallow than 41-13 - you? there're certainly other problems - like the daniels hold wiping out the slaton 6, some of kubiak's playcalling, etc. - but if you're going to turn it over in raven territory as well as deep in your own territory... i mean, how do you overcome that? i would pin this one on rosenfels, just as i would pin the tennessee one on schaub. better QB play in either game would have radically changed the outcome.
So if Sage had played a perfect game with 0 INTs against a great defense, and Baltimore wouldn't have scored on longer drives without the picks (nevermind that they had 3 drives over 70 yards), then we'd still have lost by 4. That's your argument that the loss should be pinned on Sage?
it would be a loss at home, making us 3-6. it would certainly give you lots more ammunition in the, "we're making progress" argument....but it would look like another loss with excuses to me. our defense sucks, ric. they're awful. week in and week out. just awful. i don't see progress on that side of the ball. i don't see enough progress in the running game to be excited about it. i see progress in the passing game. but it's funny to me that you're now saying that teams win or lose based solely on QB play.
To be fair to Ric, I don't think that's what he said. The *team* (Rosenfumble included) was in position to win against the Colts. Rosenfarce was a part of that. However, Rosenfoulup *did* singlehandedly hand the victory over to Indy on a freaking silver platter. One guy can rarely win a game for a team, but one guy can sure as hell lose a game. Ric's 41-to-13-could-have-been-17-to-13 was awfully kind, IMO. I give the Texans 6 points, on the conservative side, after just two of those TOs. That's a thirty point swing. 20-to-17. Nonetheless, the "if" game is pointless, and the better team won Sunday in convincing fashion.
Thank you for your commentary. Rosenlameness is a little long, but could prove useful. Wanna talk football? Do you think a player can lose or win a game by himself?
uh......... yes, major - did you even wach the game? no way you did if you're asking that question. if your QB turns the ball over 4 times, you're going to get beat 99.9999999% of the time, especially if the turnovers occur deep in territories as all 4 did yesterday. those kill scoring opportunities and/or makes it easier for the other team's offense to score. do i *literally* think it would have been a 4-point game? of course not - but it would have been much closer - hell, as is, they started the 4Q trailing by just 6 - and that was with houston leaving 10 very nearly sure-fire points on the field. it would be impossible to have actually watched that game and come away thinking someone else had a bigger role in the defeat. or that anyone was even a close second.
Obviously a player can win or lose a game by himself because Rosenfels did it against Indy. Yes, the Colts still had to score, but he contributed 90% of that loss. I don't think that they would have beaten the Ravens even if he hadn't played catch with Ray Lewis yesterday though. They are not a good team.
did you see the colt game?..... look: turnovers are game-changers. carr didn't turn the ball over this frequently; he just didn't. rosenfels has thrown 6 INTs in 10 quarters; two in the opponents' end zone - that's a 40 INT pace, MM. we're talking off the charts awful. and that doesn't even include two lost fumbles. in a 16-game season, that's 3.2 TOs a game. schaub, meanwhile, is on a 27-TO pace. the most carr had in a season was 22 in 2002 - you know, the expansion year. QB is NOT the team's biggest issue, but QB TOs are near the top. and they've cost us 1 game, verifiably, and i'd argue two more that would have at least been close. and the minnesota game is borderline considering rosenfels threw a pick in the end zone in a game we lost by 7 points. msn: rosenfails - it's always been the best one.
Ric is right here. The one thing your QB can't do is turn the ball over at a high rate. You can live with him not having a big arm or not avoiding sacks that well, etc., but if he is going to turn the ball over constantly you are not going to win. Even a good defense can't stop the other team all the time, and even the greatest defense of all time never stopped the other team's CB from running an INT back for a touchdown.
Hasn't he had enough time here? why the love for someone who is underperforming...plenty of great coaches out there that have a track record of winning...
And yet you gave the Texans every benefit of the doubt that we would have scored a TD and FG on two of the turnovers and assumed that without th other two, the Ravens wouldn't have scored on those possessions - and you *still* ended up with the Texans losing. Except those aren't the only two options. It could have been that the rest of the team sucked also, causing the loss. Pinning the Colts loss on Sage makes sense. Pinning this one on one player doesn't.
I agree entirely. Setting the Sage issue to the side, the Ravens weren't having any trouble with our defense. When they needed a big play they got them. Even without the interceptions, the Ravens were just playing better football yesterday, because they are the better team.
i'm in full agreement with you about qb's being capable of losing games on their own. i'd say the defense was the "close second" by the way....if not 1b.
major, your QB can't turn the ball over 4 times; your QB can't throw interceptions in the end zone; your QB can't turn the ball over inside the opponent 38-yard line; and your QB can't - twice - shorten the field for the opposing offense. you are not going to win games when that happens, regardless of how the rest of the team plays. and yesterday, while the rest of the team didn't play well, rosenfels was on another planet of awful. (i can't believe i'm actually having this discussion....) well, this one player threw an interception at the opponent 1-yard line - blowing a chance to cut into a 7-point deficit; threw an intercpetion on a first down at the opponent 38 - blowing a chance to cut into a 13-point deficit; and then threw 2 INTs in a 3:36 span that turned a manageable 14-point deficit (with 10:10 remaining in the game) into a 28-point blow-out.
That was supposedly his selling point. However, the guy had John-freaking-Elway for a majority of his time as OC. How much coaching did he need to do?
yep, and i think he's done well in that regard - this is a vastly improved offense. but you inherently make a good point: did he err in not bringing in a seasoned, previously successful DC? then again, they have ray rhodes on staff - he was supposed to pick up some of that slack...
All true, but ultimately irrelevant to whether or not the loss was solely on Sage Rosenfels, as you have claimed. And yet, even if you subtract all that out, the team STILL loses the game, which makes it hard to "pin this one on rosenfels" as you said. Was he a significant factor? Absolutely. But MadMax's original point was this: i think pinning that whole loss yesterday on sage rosenfels misses just how weak this team is And that's exactly right. Even a turnover-less game by the QB wouldn't have been enough to beat the Ravens because of other weaknesses across the board. And expecting the backup QB to have 0 turnovers against one of the best defenses in the NFL is a bit unfair. It's funny that when Carr was the QB, your constant defense of him was that the team has lots of holes and so his sucking was the fault of everyone else and he was never the problem. Now, you say the team is still full of filler type players, but the loss is all Rosenfels' fault.
lord....... yes, major: if we "subtract all that out," the team still loses because those turnovers each happened in a vaccum. without them, the game would've played out exactly as it did. i wasn't being literal when i suggested a 17-13 final; i was illustrating how much closer the game was had those turnovers been converted and/or avoided. i've NEVER said they would have won; only that 4 INTs give you NO CHANCE to win, especially with this team. you're right. poor guy. (sigh....) see my response to MM when he made the exact same point a few hours ago.
