Just looking at the top 10 QBs in passing yardage this past season, every one of them is older than Gabbert, with the mean age being a bit over 32 years. So he has 5 years before he is the average age of a top 10 NFL QB.
Just looking at the top 10 QBs in passing yardage this past season, every one of them is older than Gabbert, with the mean age being a bit over 32 years. So he has 5 years before he is the average age of a top 10 NFL QB.
Age is pretty important for pro athletes. They have about 5 prime years as a rule.You sure obsess with age
So...you're saying Gabbert is too young?Just looking at the top 10 QBs in passing yardage this past season, every one of them is older than Gabbert, with the mean age being a bit over 32 years. So he has 5 years before he is the average age of a top 10 NFL QB.
He's just getting started at the position. QBs can be effective longer than any other position player on the field. It's more like a baseball position, less physical stress and heavily experience oriented.So...you're saying Gabbert is too young?
He's just getting started at the position. QBs can be effective longer than any other position player on the field. It's more like a baseball position, less physical stress and heavily experience oriented.
And so is being able to play at a high level which Gabbert can'tAge is pretty important for pro athletes. They have about 5 prime years as a rule.
Not really, and that is the problem. If a pitcher is young and has problems with ball placement, he can go to the minor leagues and play over a hundred games to improve. You cannot do that in professional football because your body gets hit, it is more physically demanding, you do not have the time to fully keep reinventing the way you throw or behave in actual game conditions. Your time on the field in actual games conditions is strewn due to the nature of the sport. Yes, there are the phases of a rooking getting adjusted to NFL speed and complex playbooks but that time is still limited. For someone like Gabbert, it could be too late because unlike other highly touted prospects (and you must remember he was not really that highly thought of because he was in a weak QB class and his props where inflated due to his draft class), he has not shown even close to the flashes of brilliance required to give a coaching staff a comfortable resolve which he is the solution. David Carr was a much better prospect than Gabbert in my opinion but he went to an expansion team and his fate was decided by how the organization used him.
Arians and the real QB guru on this team Tom Moore, see a flicker but if you asked them off the record, they would tell you the chances are slight. I want Gabbert to succeed because I am a Cardinal fan but right now my attention is towards a good QB named Palmer. He is in the twilight of his career which is why anyone here is talking about Gabbert and all the options with some intensity, but because Palmer is in his twilight, our starter for good reason, and what he has done for this team, the emphasis is especially about him and rightfully should be till he does retire. When the season starts, I do not want to hear about Stanton because that means Palmer who is our best chance to win got injured, and I sure the hell do not want to hear about Gabbert on a weekly basis if he is nothing more than a clipboard holder if Palmer is on the field. I am thinking Palmer, DJ, Peterson, Dansby, Honey Badger, and of course Fitzgerald and a slew of other players before Gabbert even enters my mind because this is the 2017 season and they are the Cardinals who will decide if we get a championship. Currently, guys like Nkemdiche and even Brandon Williams hold more weight than Gabbert, as it should be on a Cardinal forum. Go Big Red!
I simply can't read this without paragraphs.
Added one for you... sorry, years of reading classics like "War and Peace" in paperback editions has warped my perception of spacing my words lol
What's a "Paperback?"Added one for you... sorry, years of reading classics like "War and Peace" in paperback editions has warped my perception of spacing my words lol
What's a "Paperback?"
What's a "Paperback?"
BA said in his presser today that Blaine Gabbert has already figured out his offense to the point where he is calling out the protections. BA said that Gabbert is "light years ahead of where I thought he would be...or where any new QB would be." He said he has never seen anything like it. The coaches are all raving about him. FWIW.
Carson's arm suddenly feels a lot better, he wants to get out throwing.
dont feed the bears!
The main thing coaches want out of their backup is to not be the cause for the team to lose and Stanton is good at that(only 2 games with multiple INT's and 6 games with 0 Int'S). Look up backup QB winning % and I think you'll be very happy with 6-3.Stanton 6-3
2014
NYG – Win (25-14) – 14/29 for 167 yds, 0 TDs, 0 Ints (1 rushing TD & 4 FGs)
SF – Win (23-14) – 18/33 for 244 yds, 2 TDs, 0 Ints
Denver – Loss (41-20) – 11/26 for 118 yds, 0 TDs, 0 Ints
Detroit – Win (14-6) – 21/32 for 306 yds, 2 TDs, 2 Ints
Seattle – Loss (19-3) – 14/26 for 149 yds, 0 TDs, 1 Int
Atlanta – Loss (29-18) – 24/39 for 294 yds, 1 TD, 2 Ints
KC – Win (17-14) – 15/30 for 239 yds, 1 TD, 0 Ints
Rams – Win (12-6) – 12/20 for 109 yds, 0 TD, 0 Ints (4 FGs)
2016
SF – Win (33-21) – 11/28 for 124 yds, 2 TDs, 0 Ints
Rest of 2016 (4 more games) – 8/20 for 68 yds, 0 TDs, 3 Ints
Overall: 52.3% completions, 8 TDs, 8 Ints
Those have to be the worst stats for a 6-3 QB in NFL history. Only wins against teams with winning records were Detroit (11-5) & KC (9-7) and I wouldn't attribute any of the wins to Stanton's quality of play.... it's time for this guy to be replaced. I really hope Gabbert blows him away in pre-season.
The main thing coaches want out of their backup is to not be the cause for the team to lose and Stanton is good at that(only 2 games with multiple INT's and 6 games with 0 Int'S). Look up backup QB winning % and I think you'll be very happy with 6-3.
You mean Robert Ethan? Harry isnt bannedharry is still banned ?
this thread is worthless without harry