Kyler + Coaching

[QuebecCard]

This, it's real simple our trenches suck. Our OL is easier to fix short term because it's one guard position which is totally screwing us because a OL works as a whole. DL, we have for more issues. We have one guy in Watt trying to hold the whole damn thing down at his age and he just can't. Our athletic LBs, our safeties not having to cover the DL's arse after a four yard run, our HBs having options to make just that one cut, our diminutive but highly talented QB having a running game and protection at the interior to throw... and freaking Keim who was on the OL is incapable of finding the big guys up front, and should be out of office now

LT: Humphrey Rd one pick
LG: Pugh Rd one pick
C: Hudson Rd two pick
RG: Jones Rd three pick
RT: Beachum Rd seven pick

Let's find a RG. Hopefully, Jones wins the RT job and then Beauchum becomes the backup at both tackle positions.

As for the "D" let's find a young NT, Corey Peters has had his day. Combine this with a rotation of Watt, Allen, Phillips, Lawrence, Fotu, Dogbe, which should be quite serviceable.

 

[DVontel]

I do hate the fact that if Kyler even plays just sub-par, we lose. Especially when I watch Mahomes, Allen, Stafford, Lamar, & Burrow come out wins even when they have bad games.

Says a lot about depth & high-end talent.

 

[BritCard]

I do hate the fact that if Kyler even plays just sub-par, we lose. Especially when I watch Mahomes, Allen, Stafford, Lamar, & Burrow come out wins even when they have bad games.

Says a lot about depth & high-end talent.

The team won 2 of 3 games without Kyler even on the field man.

Kyler had a passer rating of 67 vs Green Bay and the defense gave him the chance to drive down the field and win the game.

Kyler had 4 games with a passer rating below 90 and we lost all of them.

Stafford had 4 games with a passer rating below 90 and went 1-3.

Burrow had 4 games with a rating below 90 and lost 4.

Josh Allen had 8 below 90 and went 4-4 (but the 4 wins were Miami early when they were trash, Panthers with Cam at QB, Falcons and Jets)

Mahomes was 4-3 below 90 and the only real outlier of the bunch.

Seems pretty clear if your QB is below 90 you mostly lose, above 90 they mostly win.

 

[Stout]

I do hate the fact that if Kyler even plays just sub-par, we lose. Especially when I watch Mahomes, Allen, Stafford, Lamar, & Burrow come out wins even when they have bad games.

Says a lot about depth & high-end talent.

Fair point.

 

[DVontel]

The team won 2 of 3 games without Kyler even on the field man.

Moot point.

Kyler had a passer rating of 67 vs Green Bay and the defense game him the chance to drive down the field and win the game.

The defense got ran over the entire game. Also, still a moot point.

Stafford had 4 games with a passer rating below 90 and went 1-3.

Rams won games where Stafford has had a TD/INT ratio of 1:1, 2:2, & 1:3. These also aren’t against teams like the Jags or Texans either.

Burrow had 4 games with a rating below 90 and lost 4

Burrow just had a playoff game where he got sacked nine times & had a 0:1 TD/INT ratio.

Josh Allen had 8 below 90 and went 4-4 (but the 4 wins were Miami early when they were trash, Panthers with Cam at QB, Falcons and Jets)

So, still wins? Allen had a 0:3 TD/INT ratio against the Falcons & the Bills STILL won decisively.

Seems pretty clear if your QB is below 90 you mostly lose, above 90 they mostly win.

Seems pretty clear that despise those QBs having very meh games, their teams were able to get wins. Which speaks a lot about their depth.
Which we lack. I’m not absolving Kyler of his crap-play, but you continuing to absolve Keim’s team-building is really sad.

 

[BritCard]

Moot point.
The defense got ran over the entire game. Also, still a moot point.
Rams won games where Stafford has had a TD/INT ratio of 1:1, 2:2, & 1:3. These also aren’t against teams like the Jags or Texans either.


Burrow just had a playoff game where he got sacked nine times & had a 0:1 TD/INT ratio.

So, still wins? Allen had a 0:3 TD/INT ratio against the Falcons & the Bills STILL won decisively.
Seems pretty clear that despise those QBs having very meh games, their teams were able to get wins. Which speaks a lot about their depth.
Which we lack. I’m not absolving Kyler of his crap-play, but you continuing to absolve Keim’s team-building is really sad.

The Bills beat 4 really bad teams to get the 4 wins when Allen was poor. The only outlier really is Mahomes.

QB plays bad teams lose. QB plays well they win. More often than not.

And the first point is not moot. Nothing proves the point wrong more than a 2-1 record without Kyler, Nuk and Edmonds and a backup QB with a career 9-21 record starting.

 

[PACardsFan]

Was it? In their last 6 games they gave up 41 to the Chargers at home. Then got beat at home giving up 26 to the Niners in the next game.

Then they played a bad Broncos team with Lock at QB and won 15-10. Then beat the Ravens without Lamar 41-21, an offensive win. Then beat the Chiefs 34-31, another offensive win. Then lost to the Brown's 21-16.

The only game there you could say the defense won the game for them was the Broncos. Otherwise they either lost, or it was an obvious offensive win.

Look at our results through the same period and the difference was our offense.

The defense owned the Bears, and obvious defensive win.

Lost to the Rams 30-23 but 7 of those were a pick 6. We threw an EZ INT and had several EZ trips the offense screwed up. That game could easily have been 35-23. The offense blew it.

The Lions loss was offensive. Sure, the defense gave up 30 but the offense went several 3 and outs and the defense couldn't catch a breather. The O sucked that game.

We held the Colts to 22 but the offense could only put up 16. Another offensive loss.

We then beat the Cowboys, played well on both sides. Then at home vs the Seahawks in the last game was the only loss I'd say was more on the D than the O.

I never said the offense didn't contribute to their failures down the stretch. As I have said time and time again, the offensive woes had more to do with a weakened OL, especially when Hudson was out, a horrible WR group without Hop, and 2 RB's that took turns being injured. QB's could always play better, but Murray was by far the least of their problems offensively down the stretch. As far as the D is concerned, once the DL & secondary developed injuries & Wilson hit the rookie wall, they got embarrassed weekly. Couldn't stop the run, couldn't stop the pass, and DIDN'T FORCE TURNOVERS. And the latter is why this team started 7-0 & was 10-2. Once the D stopped being able to create turnovers, their weaknesses were exposed. The Bengals were not a great team, but they did create turnovers that turned games in their favor. We were the opposite.

 

[DVontel]

The Bills beat 4 really bad teams to get the 4 wins when Allen was poor.

Those were still competent teams. It’s funny because we got blown out by one of those teams with non-superhero QB play.

QB plays bad teams lose. QB plays well they win. More often than not.

It should not be a continuing theme for this team. You’re so hung up on blaming Kyler for everything & absolving Keim of his pathetic team-building. Which you have done relentlessly.

And the first point is not moot. Nothing proves the point wrong more than a 2-1 record without Kyler, Nuk and Edmonds and a backup QB with a career 9-21 record starting.

I’m glad you actually brought this up. You can make the same point about Colt. He had anything but a great game against Carolina. Guess what happened? We got blown the hell out cause we couldn’t get no pass rush & couldn’t cover CMC despite them calling the same plays to save our lives.


QBs plays bad & teams can still win. Too bad that doesn’t happen to this team. Not even once since Kyler & Kliff got here.

 

[DVontel]

Giants in 2019 might be the closest example, but of course, that was in heavy rain.

 

[SoonerLou]

\

Was it? In their last 6 games they gave up 41 to the Chargers at home. Then got beat at home giving up 26 to the Niners in the next game.

Then they played a bad Broncos team with Lock at QB and won 15-10. Then beat the Ravens without Lamar 41-21, an offensive win. Then beat the Chiefs 34-31, another offensive win. Then lost to the Brown's 21-16.

The only game there you could say the defense won the game for them was the Broncos. Otherwise they either lost, or it was an obvious offensive win.

Look at our results through the same period and the difference was our offense.

The defense owned the Bears, and obvious defensive win.

Lost to the Rams 30-23 but 7 of those were a pick 6. We threw an EZ INT and had several EZ trips the offense screwed up. That game could easily have been 35-23. The offense blew it.

The Lions loss was offensive. Sure, the defense gave up 30 but the offense went several 3 and outs and the defense couldn't catch a breather. The O sucked that game.

We held the Colts to 22 but the offense could only put up 16. Another offensive loss.

We then beat the Cowboys, played well on both sides. Then at home vs the Seahawks in the last game was the only loss I'd say was more on the D than the O.

Lions game is a prime example of Kliff panicking. They got gashed the week before by the Broncos. It was also probably our last potential great game from the RBs. It was as though he was scared it was going to be quick game (since our defense couldnt get off the field either). Kyler was abysmal. However, its probably a different game if we committed to the run. Could have rushed for 200 yards that game.

That could have been the Jimmy G bad QB play, but someone its a close game or win.

Gotta factor in the fg issues in the Colts game.
2 missed FGs, missed extra point and we went for it on 4th down because we were scared to kick it. If we had Evan Macpherson we'd be calling a gritty Bengals/Burrow like win ;0

 

[SoonerLou]

The team won 2 of 3 games without Kyler even on the field man.

Kyler had a passer rating of 67 vs Green Bay and the defense game him the chance to drive down the field and win the game.

Kyler had 4 games with a passer rating below 90 and we lost all of them.

Stafford had 4 games with a passer rating below 90 and went 1-3.

Burrow had 4 games with a rating below 90 and lost 4.

Josh Allen had 8 below 90 and went 4-4 (but the 4 wins were Miami early when they were trash, Panthers with Cam at QB, Falcons and Jets)

Mahomes was 4-3 below 90 and the only real outlier of the bunch.

Seems pretty clear if your QB is below 90 you mostly lose, above 90 they mostly win.

Shows how quickly that swings when the wr doesnt turn around.

67 because he didnt. Would have been 92 if he did.

 

[BritCard]

You’re so hung up on blaming Kyler for everything & absolving Keim of his pathetic team-building. Which you have done relentlessly.

Done relentlessly? Where? He put together the roster that went 7-0 right?

We lost QB1 for 3 games. The backup he brought in stepped up.

We lost our TE1. He brought in another that played well for us.

We lost our WR1 for 7 games. The rest of the options stepped up and actually had more yards per game down the stretch.

He brought in Conner who you have been defending just today.

You can't replace guys like Watt or Nuk.

Would it have been nice to have more depth at CB? Sure. But everyone is short at CB.

I'm no Keim fan but he put together the roster that was 10-2 with 5 games to go. It wasn't roster construction that lost us 4 of those 5 games. It was poor QB play, poor leadership and some bad coaching.

Everyone takes blame for that run but being fair Keim is the least of it.

 

[DVontel]

Done relentlessly? Where? He put together the roster that went 7-0 right?

Everytime you say “Well he put together a 10-2 roster”. Yea, the same roster that achieved that record mainly due to the QB *having* to play superhero mode to get wins.

We lost QB1 for 3 games. The backup he brought in stepped up.

Good for Colt. He did what a backup needed to do. Don’t think him playing bad should’ve resulted in a 34-10 drubbing to that same Panthers team you called awful earlier.

We lost our TE1. He brought in another that played well for us.

We shouldn’t be trading away capital when one of our starters goes down. It’s arguable that Ertz was a downgrade compared to Maxx. He surely was blocking. It also says something when the team that traded him away took off offensively.

We lost our WR1 for 7 games. The rest of the options stepped up and actually had more yards per game down the stretch.

Literally no one stepped up outside of probably Wesley. Green & Kirk were pretty much silent after Hop went down. Speaks to lack of depth & top-end talent.

He brought in Conner who you have been defending just today.

I defended Conner due to Stout having unfair expectations of playing every single game. Not cause of his overall play.

You can't replace guys like Watt or Nuk.

The fact our defense pretty much held onto a guy that everyone here feared would miss a good amount of games says a lot about our depth & high-end talent. You can blame Kyler all you want, but how are you also not seeing this?

I'm no Keim fan but he put together the roster that was 10-2 with 5 games to go. It wasn't roster construction that lost us 4 of those 5 games. It was poor QB play, poor leadership and some bad coaching.

It was a combination of poor QB play, poor leadership, bad coaching, & lack of depth/high-end talent. Excluding Kyler, where is the high-end talent on this team you can count going forward? Budda & Hop? Hudson had a down year, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Chase maybe? You gotta stop with the “I’m no Keim fan” shtick, especially when you say stuff like this:

Everyone takes blame for that run but being fair Keim is the least of it.

 

[Outerlimits]

I do hate the fact that if Kyler even plays just sub-par, we lose. Especially when I watch Mahomes, Allen, Stafford, Lamar, & Burrow come out wins even when they have bad games.

Says a lot about depth & high-end talent.

Well, we did win two games with Colt McCoy who doesn't have anywhere close to the talent Kyler has.

 

[Jetstream Green]

The team won 2 of 3 games without Kyler even on the field man.

Kyler had a passer rating of 67 vs Green Bay and the defense gave him the chance to drive down the field and win the game.

Kyler had 4 games with a passer rating below 90 and we lost all of them.

Stafford had 4 games with a passer rating below 90 and went 1-3.

Burrow had 4 games with a rating below 90 and lost 4.

Josh Allen had 8 below 90 and went 4-4 (but the 4 wins were Miami early when they were trash, Panthers with Cam at QB, Falcons and Jets)

Mahomes was 4-3 below 90 and the only real outlier of the bunch.

Seems pretty clear if your QB is below 90 you mostly lose, above 90 they mostly win.

This list of reasons is skewed to meet your narrative on first sight which isn't exactly accurate

1) I doubt McCoy wins one when the whole team started dumping a big stink, meaning we would have had more than one Carolina game
2) Which Kyler took and it was Green Bay which stopped that game winning drive. To say Kyler did not deliver is wrong
3) Stafford is Stafford and that is not unusual, because there were more than his share of games at Detroit where they lost because he did not have a over the top supporting class... hence, let's all stop making us think Stafford is some elite QB because the NFL likes the story, he's a vet and not a young guy like Kyler
4) Burrow is a young player and more apt to your poiny but is on a young team, and when the QB looks like crap after being great in other games, it's because other guys on the team are not giving any help
5) Allen plays amazing but has his share of inconsistency, sort of like past good/bad Wentz but those games are also blimps on their radar where the coach and other players did not show up... we cannot look at all these loses without putting the same critical approach on Kingbury taking for granted all these other coaches are always on point
6) The Chiefs have a lot of joker wilds in their deck and a crafty head coach, hence when the team plays well or rather has the potential to make big plays around their QB being off, you can win
7) Seems to me that when the whole team plays like crap around a good QB, there is a chance the QB will not play well and you lose... defense, offense around the QB, coach, injury situation, are just a few of the variables than just saying the QB in a vacuum is why you win
Kyler did not play well. That will affect the outcome in a major way but it's not just a QB playing by themselves to judge a team sport... goes both ways

 

[BritCard]

Everytime you say “Well he put together a 10-2 roster”. Yea, the same roster that achieved that record mainly due to the QB *having* to play superhero mode to get wins.

Good for Colt. He did what a backup needed to do. Don’t think him playing bad should’ve resulted in a 34-10 drubbing to that same Panthers team you called awful earlier.

We shouldn’t be trading away capital when one of our starters goes down. It’s arguable that Ertz was a downgrade compared to Maxx. He surely was blocking. It also says something when the team that traded him away took off offensively.

Literally no one stepped up outside of probably Wesley. Green & Kirk were pretty much silent after Hop went down. Speaks to lack of depth & top-end talent.
I defended Conner due to Stout having unfair expectations of playing every single game. Not cause of his overall play.

The fact our defense pretty much held onto a guy that everyone here feared would miss a good amount of games says a lot about our depth & high-end talent. You can blame Kyler all you want, but how are you also not seeing this?

It was a combination of poor QB play, poor leadership, bad coaching, & lack of depth/high-end talent. Excluding Kyler, where is the high-end talent on this team you can count going forward? Budda & Hop? Hudson had a down year, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Chase maybe? You gotta stop with the “I’m no Keim fan” shtick, especially when you say stuff like this:

Ahh so the wins were Kyler playing superhero mode but the losses were on Keim. Got it. How did he play super hero mode in the 2 games we won without him?

No one stepped up outside of Wesley? Wesley had LESS yards per game after Nuk went out for the last 4 games than he had earlier in the year. I listed how everyone stepped up recently. Kirk added 20 yards a game with Nuk out. Ertz added 15. Green added 10. Conner added 30.

It's as simple as this, as it is for most teams all the time. QB plays well, team plays well and wins. QB plays bad, team plays bad and losses.

The problem with the last 5 games was Kyler looked like he stopped trying. When he lost Nuk and with Alford and Watt out his body language completely changed and he looked like he had given up, except in the one game back in Texas where he had his perfect record to defend. Then he found the motivation to play well again. Outside of that he just looked like he couldn't be bothered.

Instead of being the guy that says "We can do this. We are still a great team without these guys" he looked like the guy that thought "We can't win without them, why bother?"

If you want to delude yourself to suit your narrative and pretend Keim wasn't responsible for the 10-2 roster but was responsible for the 1-4 roster that's up to you. It's not reality though.

 

[BritCard]

7) Seems to me that when the whole team plays like crap around a good QB, there is a chance the QB will not play well and you lose... defense, offense around the QB, coach, injury situation, are just a few of the variables than just saying the QB in a vacuum is why you win
Kyler did not play well. That will affect the outcome in a major way but it's not just a QB playing by themselves to judge a team sport... goes both ways

This is the crux of it.

What's more likely. The whole offense just suddenly started playing poorly at the same time? Or Kyler started playing poorly and as the man that runs the offense and everyone else relies on it threw the whole offense off?

I just don't buy the idea that the whole offense and coaching sucked down the stretch and that effected Kyler. Kyler just got worse, which made the offense worse. Which makes the defense worse. Which makes the coaching look worse. The QB is the fulcrum.

He wasn't as accurate. He made some really poor decisions. He missed open guys. He threw RZ interceptions and pick 6's. His running was poor. His YPA dropped off. He just wasn't the same guy. For me the main issue was he was bad in the pocket post injury. Before he was sitting in the pocket and picking his passes, those last 5 games he looked scared to get hit. He was bugging out early. He didn't want to hold them ball so was dumping off 1st reads. It didn't look comfortable running with the ball. As a result it threw off the whole passing game.

Kyler was bad. It made the offense bad. So we lost. That doesn't mean I hate Kyler or I don't think he's a very good QB or that I want him gone.

Them's just the facts. People trying to find other excuses for the losing streak are just denying reality to absolve Kyler of blame.

 

[Stout]

Instead of being the guy that says "We can do this. We are still a great team without these guys" he looked like the guy that thought "We can't win without them, why bother?"

Well said.

 

[DVontel]

Ahh so the wins were Kyler playing superhero mode but the losses were on Keim. Got it. How did he play super hero mode in the 2 games we won without him?

Are you pretending to not comprehend at all? I mentioned earlier the same happened to Colt. I think you’re so fluctuating on pinning it all on Kyler that you’re not.

No one stepped up outside of Wesley? Wesley had LESS yards per game after Nuk went out for the last 4 games than he had earlier in the year. I listed how everyone stepped up recently. Kirk added 20 yards a game with Nuk out. Ertz added 15. Green added 10. Conner added 30.

It seems like you’re forgetting points matter. Wesley was the only one to score multiple TDs after Nuk went out. Kirk, I won’t even count that one against Detroit where the game was already over. Green was held to a blanket 0. Good for him faking out Trevon Diggs I guess. Ertz the same & his yards dropped if anything. Conner isn’t a WR, but he is the only one that did something so I’ll give that to him.

It's as simple as this, as it is for most teams all the time. QB plays well, team plays well and wins. QB plays bad, team plays bad and losses.

How is everyone else getting it but you? Seriously? QB plays bad does not equal automatic Ls. QB plays bad + still a win = Great overall team.
That goes for Kyler, Colt, & every other QB out there. That’s pretty simple to everyone except you I guess.

The problem with the last 5 games was Kyler looked like he stopped trying. When he lost Nuk and with Alford and Watt out his body language completely changed and he looked like he had given up, except in the one game back in Texas where he had his perfect record to defend. Then he found the motivation to play well again. Outside of that he just looked like he couldn't be bothered.

Kyler played like awful. This is news to no one.

Instead of being the guy that says "We can do this. We are still a great team without these guys" he looked like the guy that thought "We can't win without them, why bother?"

Sure. It doesn’t excuse Keim’s ineptness, but I agree.

If you want to delude yourself to suit your narrative and pretend Keim wasn't responsible for the 10-2 roster but was responsible for the 1-4 roster that's up to you. It's not reality though.

You’re the only here that’s deluding yourself into thinking Keim didn’t build a flawed roster. You can purposely not understand that just because your QB(again, goes for Kyler, Colt, & others) plays bad, does not mean the whole team plays bad. I gave you examples of this, but of course, you wrote them off to fit your narrative. Everyone else is understanding it, but you.

If you think absolve Keim blame of how he has built his teams for years, then hey, that’s on you. We can’t stop you. It seems like mostly everyone else here is not a fan & for obvious good reasons.

 

[WeBlitz]

I agree with @DVontel.

Kyler’s poor play isn’t being absolved in the slightest. I think a lot of people here have came to a conclusion that he’s responsible for his own poor play. At the same time, a QB playing poorly, whether it’s Kyler, Colt, or any other QB in a Arizona uniform, should not directly lead to losses. When you see a QB like Lamar have a 1:4 TD:INT ratio & the Ravens still get the win, that’s an answer of a good defense with a good coaching staff. Do any of you seriously envision pulling out a win if Kyler, Colt, or any other QB put up that statline under this current regime? The obvious answer is no. Matthew Stafford with a 1:3 TD/INT ratio against Minnesota, late in the season, with two of them in his own endzone I believe, however, the Rams still managed to win by 7. That’s an answer of a very good roster that includes upper talent & depth, along with a great coaching staff.


I think no single one person should be absolved. Everyone played in a part in it

 

[QuebecCard]

Ahh so the wins were Kyler playing superhero mode but the losses were on Keim. Got it. How did he play super hero mode in the 2 games we won without him?

No one stepped up outside of Wesley? Wesley had LESS yards per game after Nuk went out for the last 4 games than he had earlier in the year. I listed how everyone stepped up recently. Kirk added 20 yards a game with Nuk out. Ertz added 15. Green added 10. Conner added 30.

It's as simple as this, as it is for most teams all the time. QB plays well, team plays well and wins. QB plays bad, team plays bad and losses.

The problem with the last 5 games was Kyler looked like he stopped trying. When he lost Nuk and with Alford and Watt out his body language completely changed and he looked like he had given up, except in the one game back in Texas where he had his perfect record to defend. Then he found the motivation to play well again. Outside of that he just looked like he couldn't be bothered.

Instead of being the guy that says "We can do this. We are still a great team without these guys" he looked like the guy that thought "We can't win without them, why bother?"

If you want to delude yourself to suit your narrative and pretend Keim wasn't responsible for the 10-2 roster but was responsible for the 1-4 roster that's up to you. It's not reality though.

So true in regards to the BOLD.

 

[DVontel]

I agree with @DVontel.

Kyler’s poor play isn’t being absolved in the slightest. I think a lot of people here have came to a conclusion that he’s responsible for his own poor play. At the same time, a QB playing poorly, whether it’s Kyler, Colt, or any other QB in a Arizona uniform, should not directly lead to losses. When you see a QB like Lamar have a 1:4 TD:INT ratio & the Ravens still get the win, that’s an answer of a good defense with a good coaching staff. Do any of you seriously envision pulling out a win if Kyler, Colt, or any other QB put up that statline under this current regime? The obvious answer is no. Matthew Stafford with a 1:3 TD/INT ratio against Minnesota, late in the season, with two of them in his own endzone I believe, however, the Rams still managed to win by 7. That’s an answer of a very good roster that includes upper talent & depth, along with a great coaching staff.


I think no single one person should be absolved. Everyone played in a part in it

Pretty much this. I think mostly everyone else understands the problem or problem(s).

 

[cardpa]

Murray doesn't like to get hit and when he gets nicked up his tolerance for getting hit goes down even further and if he gets injured then his tolerance to get hit goes down the proverbial toilet. You can't play QB and avoid getting hit to make a play sometimes. Murray's desire to avoid contact is why he doesn't step up in the pocket as doing so increases your chance of getting hit. It's why he runs backwards out of the pocket, to avoid a hit, he runs away from contact. I don't think he has the testicular fortitude to play QB in the NFL.

 

[QuebecCard]

Murray doesn't like to get hit and when he gets nicked up his tolerance for getting hit goes down even further and if he gets injured then his tolerance to get hit goes down the proverbial toilet. You can't play QB and avoid getting hit to make a play sometimes. Murray's desire to avoid contact is why he doesn't step up in the pocket as doing so increases your chance of getting hit. It's why he runs backwards out of the pocket, to avoid a hit, he runs away from contact. I don't think he has the testicular fortitude to play QB in the NFL.

190lb guys taking on charging defensive players who outweigh you by 30, 40, 50lbs is a sign of monumental stupidity, not balls.

 

[BritCard]

Ertz the same & his yards dropped if anything.

This is why I can't argue with you man. Would take like 5 seconds for you to check this and see in the last 5 games his YPG increased from 47 per game to 63 per game.

I'll argue based on facts, you can continue making up stories.