Mayock: Skins Could Take T. Williams - Page 3

Archie Bunker · 04-08-2010, 09:30 AM

http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/04/07/will...ector-at-no-4/

Williams could be McNabb’s protector at No. 4
Posted: April 7th, 2010 | Mike Mayock

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the effect the Donovan McNabb trade will have on the draft, and the more I think about it the more I believe the Redskins will be a factor in the NFC East. They have a veteran quarterback now and they’re going to draft a left tackle with pick No. 4. And keep in mind, they could have a choice between Oklahoma State’s Russell Okung and Oklahoma’s Trent Williams, the two top tackles in the entire draft.

If so, they could go with Williams, even though he is generally regarded as the No. 2 left tackle behind Okung. Williams fits Washington’s scheme better. He’s a little bit more athletic for the Redskins’ zone-blocking scheme. I think Williams makes more sense for the Redskins at pick No. 4.

The other McNabb effect is on the quarterback situation with Jimmy Clausen, whose pro day I will be at on Friday in South Bend. He had a shot at going to the Redskins before the McNabb trade, but not anymore. The medicals and how he is evaluated off the field will go a long way in determining if he is going to be a top-10 pick.

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Was this before or after his 3rd quarter pick that allowed the Broncos to get back in the game (thank god for DJ and JC, though)?

What are we arguing?

I don't get it?

Matt Cassel wasn't good last year.

The Chiefs weren't good last year.

All I said was he wasn't worse when Charles was in the backfield...but you idiots are going to spin it how you want to spin it and we'll go back and talk about how he was REALLLLLLY bad in this game...but NOT REALLLLLY bad in this other game?!

Who gives a shit.

I called something a myth, OTWP called me out with stats, and then he contradicted himself with those very stats, and now somehow this ends up back on me?

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The weather was fine in that game. Cassel was horrible. Charles had 20 carries for over 140 yards, but Cassel could not stop throwing picks, including two killers at the end.

Ok?

If Charles was averaging 7 YPC...

Why wasn't he getting more touches?

You think that was Cassel calling those plays?

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I get that you are delusional, and will post anything to attempt to get under the skin of a few of us.

You've yet to counter anything Dane, Hamas or I have said.

Yes, I have.

You just showed how meaningless his stats were during the LJ part of the season...

and then used those stats to show how he was "worse" during the Charles part...

Yet...

If you think about it...

They were the ****ing same...

Meaning he was basically the same QB the entire season...mediocre at times, terrible at other times...that's about it.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 04-08-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

There was something off about that game that I don't remember...was it the weather?

Shit...

I don't recall...looking at the box score...you're right...why the **** were we throwing the ball 43 times in this case?

I mean...

Regardless...

The dude was mediocre, at best, from week 2 through week 17...

Saying he was noticeably worse with Charles is just not true. But if OTWP wants to keep contradicting himself playing the stat game I'll stay and watch.

How the hell am I contradicting myself?

He played like shit in the first 3 quarters of his first 7 games, and managed to play even worse once he had the benefit of the 2nd best running game in the league and a much improved OL that only allowed 8 sacks in the final 6 games.

Does the booze offset the Adderol?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 04-08-2010, 02:16 PM

I'm done arguing with this idiot. On to Masters coverage.

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:19 PM

ok ok ok...

So...

We're just going to assume that the OL improved which led to less sacks?

Uh...

Hello?!?!

That was Charles.

That was the defense respecting Charles.

And really...Cassel didn't play worse. I mean...it was absolutely a combination of just about everything...and the Chiefs were just a bad team, period.

Chris Chambers, Leonard Pope, Lance Long, Bobby Wade and Mark Bradley were his primary targets during the Charles run/Bowe suspension...

You can only do so much...

This argument is just stupid.

Like I said...

Cassel was mediocre at times, terrible at other times...and Charles was really the only sign of hope for 2010...

That being said...still giving Cassel 8 games to show he has what he had in 2008...play the New England card all you want but 2008 Cassel wasn't too much different than 2009 Brady on that team...which would then ALSO prove my whole Brady is overrated angle so win/win for me I suppose.

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm done arguing with this idiot. On to Masters coverage.

Well I figured...

I impress myself...having Dane, Hamas and OTWP's number?! I should get a medal or something.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-08-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

What are we arguing?

Your spurious and unsubstantiated claims.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-08-2010, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

Well I figured...

I impress myself...having Dane, Hamas and OTWP's number?! I should get a medal or something.

Dude, you've been owned mercilessly in this thread. You've offered no support of your opinion other than baseless conjecture, and your takes have been refuted with a litany of facts.

Deluding yourself into ignoring them doesn't change the fact that your entire argument is bunk, and you were completely incapable of refuting the counterargument to your false claims.

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:24 PM

Hmm...

Quote:

First 7 games

56% completion
179 yards per game
10 TD's
5 INT's
77.1 QB rating

Last 8 games

54% completion
208 yards per game
6 TD's
11 INT's
63.7 QB rating

Quote:

Oh, and to respond to the claim that Cassel got no credit for going 10/5 in his first 7 games - why the **** would he?

Of his 10 TD's in those 7 games, only TWO of them came in the first half of games.

One of them came in the late 3rd quarter with the team down 20 points.

And the OTHER SEVEN came in the 4th quarter of blowouts, with the Chiefs losing by an average of FIFTEEN points at the time of the TD.

Let's give Cassel props for playing well late in games we were getting blown out in - mainly because HE played like shit for the first 3 quarters.

Awesome.

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:27 PM

and it is interesting OTWP decided to add Jacksonville into the equation...with LJ being suspended for that game and all...but since we didn't really utilize Charles at all I'll let it slide...

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:28 PM

Basically he was 1-6 through those first seven games and had 10 TD's and 5 INT's...

He finished 3-5...had two ridiculously awful games against Denver and Buffalo...and the six other games were on par, or better than any other game than he played during the first 6 he played with Larry Johnson.

So...

Again.

Myth.

Anything else?

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-08-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

Would many QB's succeed in KC last year? Nope.

I think it depends on your definition of "success".

If you're defining success by wins, you're probably right. There were just far too many holes on both sides of the ball for this team to win more than 7 games.

But if you're referring to Cassel as having success, you're wrong. Cassel was clueless on the field, held onto the ball far too long, took nearly as many sacks in KC as he had in NE (47 vs. 42), has a weak arm, is afraid to make tight throws, lacks overall leadership and is clearly indecisive.

I don't know if all or even any of those characteristics can change from January 2010 to September 2010.

Cassel was a complete failure.

Hootie · 04-08-2010, 02:32 PM

Hey...

I think you're confusing me as some sort of Cassel supporter...

I was cheering for Clausen before anyone...fortunately, this website has the archived posts to prove it.

I am a big fan of hedge bets...Clausen is a great hedge bet for this Cassel kid who people like you have already labeled a "complete failure"...

Me...still willing to see what he has for 8 games...

If he STILL doesn't show anything...done. Simple. Damn we lost a 2nd round pick and some money that wasn't ours to begin with and really has no long term implications whatsoever...

So lets cross our fingers and pray for Clausen...even though we all know it won't happen.

Ralphy Boy · 04-08-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yeah, some myth.

The only stat that Cassel improved on is his yards per game. Everything else was worse, and the important statistics were much worse.

First 7 games

56% completion
179 yards per game
10 TD's
5 INT's
77.1 QB rating

Last 8 games

54% completion
208 yards per game
6 TD's
11 INT's
63.7 QB rating

Yep, it's a myth...

Break the season into quarters and it doesn't look so bad. Oh wait, yes it does. I'm talking about breaking the season into quarters, not each quarter of the game.
1st quarter (3) 59.6%, 5 TD/2 INT 89.8 QB rating
2nd quarter (4) 52.9%, 5 TD/3 INT 70.6 QB rating
3rd quarter (4) 50.8%, 3 TD/4 INT 63.1 QB rating
4th quarter (4) 57.6%, 3 TD/7 INT 64.7 QB rating.

Hey look at that, his completion % and QB rating got better from 3rd to 4th quarter.

Reaching for hope? Cassel had a better completion % than Manning & Brady in 2009 on passes that were thrown over 40 yards, completing 42.9% while Brady had 21.4% and Manning had no passes completed over 40.

That is passes THROWN over 40, not that a receiver didn't catch a 15 yard slant and take it 40+.

Sad part? Cassel was 12% on passes from 21-30 yards. Manning was 34.4% and Brady 32%.

QB rating for Cassel by distance thrown:
Behind LOS 80.2
1-10 yards 76.2
11-20 58.9
21-30 7.9
31-40 105.4
41+ 89.9

Pretty sure that he has to be in the bottom of the league on 21-30 and right near the top in his 7 passes thrown 31-40 & on 7 thrown 41+.
Brees was 140.0 on 9 passes thrown 31-40 and 63.7 on 9 thrown 41+
Manning was 60.8 on 24 passes thrown 31-40 & 39.6 on 2 thrown 41+
Brady was 58.0 on 12 passes thrown 31-40 & 75.0 on 14 thrown 41+.

The question I pose is, would having a big target help improve those 21-30 yard passes?

04-08-2010, 09:30 AM
Archie Bunker The Wait Is Over Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Random Small Town Casino cash: $-701022	Mayock: Skins Could Take T. Williams http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/04/07/will...ector-at-no-4/ Williams could be McNabb’s protector at No. 4 Posted: April 7th, 2010 \| Mike Mayock I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the effect the Donovan McNabb trade will have on the draft, and the more I think about it the more I believe the Redskins will be a factor in the NFC East. They have a veteran quarterback now and they’re going to draft a left tackle with pick No. 4. And keep in mind, they could have a choice between Oklahoma State’s Russell Okung and Oklahoma’s Trent Williams, the two top tackles in the entire draft. If so, they could go with Williams, even though he is generally regarded as the No. 2 left tackle behind Okung. Williams fits Washington’s scheme better. He’s a little bit more athletic for the Redskins’ zone-blocking scheme. I think Williams makes more sense for the Redskins at pick No. 4. The other McNabb effect is on the quarterback situation with Jimmy Clausen, whose pro day I will be at on Friday in South Bend. He had a shot at going to the Redskins before the McNabb trade, but not anymore. The medicals and how he is evaluated off the field will go a long way in determining if he is going to be a top-10 pick.
Posts: 6,219

04-08-2010, 02:16 PM	#35
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2051115	I'm done arguing with this idiot. On to Masters coverage.
Posts: 60,758

04-08-2010, 02:19 PM	#36
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	ok ok ok... So... We're just going to assume that the OL improved which led to less sacks? Uh... Hello?!?! That was Charles. That was the defense respecting Charles. And really...Cassel didn't play worse. I mean...it was absolutely a combination of just about everything...and the Chiefs were just a bad team, period. Chris Chambers, Leonard Pope, Lance Long, Bobby Wade and Mark Bradley were his primary targets during the Charles run/Bowe suspension... You can only do so much... This argument is just stupid. Like I said... Cassel was mediocre at times, terrible at other times...and Charles was really the only sign of hope for 2010... That being said...still giving Cassel 8 games to show he has what he had in 2008...play the New England card all you want but 2008 Cassel wasn't too much different than 2009 Brady on that team...which would then ALSO prove my whole Brady is overrated angle so win/win for me I suppose.
Posts: 56,356

04-08-2010, 02:27 PM	#41
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	and it is interesting OTWP decided to add Jacksonville into the equation...with LJ being suspended for that game and all...but since we didn't really utilize Charles at all I'll let it slide...
Posts: 56,356

04-08-2010, 02:28 PM	#42
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	Basically he was 1-6 through those first seven games and had 10 TD's and 5 INT's... He finished 3-5...had two ridiculously awful games against Denver and Buffalo...and the six other games were on par, or better than any other game than he played during the first 6 he played with Larry Johnson. So... Again. Myth. Anything else?
Posts: 56,356

04-08-2010, 02:32 PM	#44
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	Hey... I think you're confusing me as some sort of Cassel supporter... I was cheering for Clausen before anyone...fortunately, this website has the archived posts to prove it. I am a big fan of hedge bets...Clausen is a great hedge bet for this Cassel kid who people like you have already labeled a "complete failure"... Me...still willing to see what he has for 8 games... If he STILL doesn't show anything...done. Simple. Damn we lost a 2nd round pick and some money that wasn't ours to begin with and really has no long term implications whatsoever... So lets cross our fingers and pray for Clausen...even though we all know it won't happen.
Posts: 56,356