Evidence that John Beck is the WRONG ANSWER

[Philly Fin Fan]

His contract was reported at $20.2 million for 5 years with another $10 million or so in performance-based incentives. The signing bonus was $7.75 million.

In other words, he earns around $4 million a year sitting on the bench. We pay McCown a bit over $3 million a year.

I looked up a couple of other backups:

Charlie Batch: $1.4 million.
Seneca Wallace: $1.5 million.
Ryan Fitzpatrick: $0.9 million (minimum RFA tender).
Brad Johnson: $2.5 million

It's surprisingly difficult to find backup QB data these days... and it doesn't help that the NFLPA have shut down outside access to their database. The only conclusion seems to be that backup QB salaries vary a great deal.

I know you are usually good at hunting down contract info, but if you gravedig some threads (I'm too lazy to do it), you can find a thread with several articles I quoted for Tommy which all state Quinns base salary for the next several years is only $750,000.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

I know you are usually good at hunting down contract info, but if you gravedig some threads (I'm too lazy to do it), you can find a thread with several articles I quoted for Tommy which all state Quinns base salary for the next several years is only $750,000.

But if his signing bonus was big, trading him would accelerate that bonus for the Browns, thus crippling their cap.  They can't afford that right now.

[fyo]

I know you are usually good at hunting down contract info, but if you gravedig some threads (I'm too lazy to do it), you can find a thread with several articles I quoted for Tommy which all state Quinns base salary for the next several years is only $750,000.

I have no idea what his base salary is for next year, because the NFLPA decided ordinary people shouldn't be allowed access to this data.

Therefore, the only information I have is for his total contract, as reported in the media, e.g. here, here or here (those "here"s are links, but unfortunately the site layout specifies that links should look exactly like ordinary text, so sometimes it's hard to see).

[MUCPhin]

I've said it before. Beck is not the next Dan Marino but the next Bob Griese. Beck could do wanders in a ball control smash mouth offense with the tools around him. If Beck can be effective by throwing between 25 or 30 times a game, you'll see a difference.

I think this is a great observation!  If the Dolphins can find a way pound the ball and run some clock I think Beck would benefit greatly from this.  Unfortunately, this is dependent upon Ronnie coming back healthy and Ricky not having his head next to his colon.  I remember reading a statistic before the '07 season saying that when Ben Roethlisberger throws the ball more than 25 times in a game, the Steelers chances of winning fall DRAMATICALLY.  I think John Beck puts the Dolphins in a similar situation.

[fyo]

I remember reading a statistic before the '07 season saying that when Ben Roethlisberger throws the ball more than 25 times in a game, the Steelers chances of winning fall DRAMATICALLY.

This is the worst kind of statistics. Utter BS. There's an implied causality that's the inverse of what is actually the case.

In games where the Steelers are AHEAD, they run the ball.
In games where the Steelers are BEHIND, they throw the ball.

Neither speaks to HOW they actually got ahead or behind.

This is exactly like the pathetic "we need to run the ball 30 times to win". Sure, if you look a games where we ran the ball a lot, we probably did win almost all... OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE FREAKING BALL!

I blame the talking heads for this one. There's just no way to excuse this kind of pitiful ass backwards analysis.

[MUCPhin]

This is the worst kind of statistics. Utter BS. There's an implied causality that's the inverse of what is actually the case.

In games where the Steelers are AHEAD, they run the ball.
In games where the Steelers are BEHIND, they throw the ball.

Neither speaks to HOW they actually got ahead or behind.

This is exactly like the pathetic "we need to run the ball 30 times to win". Sure, if you look a games where we ran the ball a lot, we probably did win almost all... OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE FREAKING BALL!

I blame the talking heads for this one. There's just no way to excuse this kind of pitiful ass backwards analysis.

You're right, i think it was too early to process the logic on that one

[bsmooth]

Am I missing something here?  Did someone post offensive images in this thread?  Racial slurs?  Homophobic and hateful rants?

We don't lock threads at TDMMC over a difference of opinion.  There wouldn't be any threads unlocked if we did.

His unatural man love for Matt Ryan is downright pornographic. It makes the man love JTex expressed for Brady last season seem truly platonic.

[ethurst2]

This is the worst kind of statistics. Utter BS. There's an implied causality that's the inverse of what is actually the case.

In games where the Steelers are AHEAD, they run the ball.
In games where the Steelers are BEHIND, they throw the ball.

Neither speaks to HOW they actually got ahead or behind.

This is exactly like the pathetic "we need to run the ball 30 times to win". Sure, if you look a games where we ran the ball a lot, we probably did win almost all... OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE FREAKING BALL!

I blame the talking heads for this one. There's just no way to excuse this kind of pitiful ass backwards analysis.

With the exception of the 2000 Rams (who barely beat the Titans in the Super Bowl), teams that win Super Bowl run the ball more than they throw the ball. It's a random sample and that's what usually wins the big game.

The Dolphins won two Super Bowls with a punishing ground game. In Super Bowl 8, Bob Griese (I think) only threw 6 times and Larry Csonka rushed for 145 yards. You're right. back then, the Dolphins would go down the field with a strong running game and score first taking huge amounts of time off the clock.

A quarterback is better off with a powerful running game than to sit there and chuck it. I'd almost prefer my quarterback to throw only 15 times a game if possible regardless of the situation. Beck may have launched the ball 40 times in college but that's hard to do in the NFL week in and week out.

I looked this up the other night. The Dolphins most dominating performance in the playoffs during the Marino era is when they shut out San Diego in the 92 AFC Divisional Playoffs 31-0. Miami almost ran for 140 yards and Marino didn't throw that much. In the 1984 AFC Championship game when Miami exploded on Pittsburgh in the second half to win 45-28, the Steelers were actually close in that game until Tony Dungy, then the Steelers defensive coordinator, started trying to blitz Marino up the middle.

People can hate on Wannstedt all they want but you have to give Wanny credit for understanding that the Dolphins needed to run the ball first to win. The first two seasons, he pulled it off with Lamar Smith and then with Ricky Williams. Wannstedts problem was that he coached scared and panicked too much. I think that Jay Fiedler, at that time, was the perfect quarterback for the situation but if Fiedler made a mistake, such as an INT, Wanny would order the game plan dumbed down.

I agree, the stat depends on a lot of variables but it's safe to say that a team with a running game and a good front seven stands a chance to go deep into the playoffs.

[fyo]

it's safe to say that a team with a running game and a good front seven stands a chance to go deep into the playoffs.

I don't disagree with that, at all. It's when, in some random game (every single week), a graphic comes up showing that the [Insert Team Name Here] win much more when the team runs the ball more than XX times (or the running back gets more than 100 yards or some similar crap).

There should be an FCC rule that dictates punishment of, oh I don't know, 100 lashes or something for each time a stat like this is brought up.

If you wanted to do it right, you could look at HOW a team gets ahead, but no one ever does that - at least not that I've seen. Even that is liable to have some bias, since most coaches are conservative and will run the ball if they can, so when you start to get a lot of throws, even in a close game, it's often a sign that the team couldn't run the ball...

looked this up the other night. The Dolphins most dominating performance in the playoffs during the Marino era is when they shut out San Diego in the 92 AFC Divisional Playoffs 31-0. Miami almost ran for 200 yards and Marino didn't throw that much.

This is starting to slip into nonsense. Seriously. What did you EXPECT the Dolphins to do when dominating a team completely. Throw bombs? Of course Marino didn't throw much.... they were winning, which is the whole point.

[ethurst2]

I don't disagree with that, at all. It's when, in some random game (every single week), a graphic comes up showing that the [Insert Team Name Here] win much more when the team runs the ball more than XX times (or the running back gets more than 100 yards or some similar crap).

There should be an FCC rule that dictates punishment of, oh I don't know, 100 lashes or something for each time a stat like this is brought up.

If you wanted to do it right, you could look at HOW a team gets ahead, but no one ever does that - at least not that I've seen. Even that is liable to have some bias, since most coaches are conservative and will run the ball if they can, so when you start to get a lot of throws, even in a close game, it's often a sign that the team couldn't run the ball...

This is starting to slip into nonsense. Seriously. What did you EXPECT the Dolphins to do when dominating a team completely. Throw bombs? Of course Marino didn't throw much.... they were winning, which is the whole point.

Like you stated, what did you expect the Dolphins to do? Start throwing bombs once they were winning? Well the Patriots did it with success last year. The Rams did it in 2000 when they would be ahead by three touchdowns (funny, no one ever mentions that in the same breath as the 2007 Patriots of running up the score).

But here's the irony about the 92 Dolphins - Chargers playoff game. The Dolphins did not get into the lead with Marino THROWING THE BALL. Aaron Craver rushed for 8 times for 72 yards and Bobby Humphery had 74 yards. It's the first and last time ever in the Marino Era that Miami committed to a running game from the beginning to the end of a game with the exception of the Johnson years when everyone would complain that Jimmy would shut down the offense and let the defense take over.

Miami's Team Stats that year were:

Points Per Game : 21.2
Offensive Ranking 8th (NFL)
Defensive Ranking 11th (NFL)
Points Allowed Per Game: 17.6
Total Rush Yards From Scrimmage:*1525 (who says that Marino didn't have a thousand yard back)
Rushing Yards Avg: 3.8

This flies right in the face of those that say Marino NEVER had a running game.  When the Dolphins committed to the run, that's what beat San Diego and not Marino's right arm. The running game is what got them to the 1992 AFC Championship Game.

I've stated this before. Marino absolutely HATED running plays. This game showed that the Dolphins, if Shula would have been more adamant about it, could have blew teams out of the water as long as they were committed to running the ball with Marino still as a weapon. I watched the game and was totally surprised.

The Dolphins two years later went into San Diego and was up 21-6. They were dominating the Chargers but in the second half, were a different team. WHY? Because they weren't committed to the running game. They were dominating San Diego then so what was the difference between the 1992 Divisional Playoff Game and the 1994 Divisional Playoff Game?

Establishing the running game and staying with it.

Two of the same scenarios. Miami dominating San Diego in 92 because of the running game.

Then Miami losing to San Diego 22-21 in 94 when not shoving the ball down San Diego's throats.

A side note on the 92 San Diego game. The Dolphins surprised everyone when they came out with a mantra to run the ball. No one expected Miami to punish the Chargers. Miami was installed as three point favorites to win the AFC Championship Game against Buffalo at JRS the next week because of such a dominating performance. The headline was that "Marino finally has a running game".

What do the Dolphins do? Go back to the same old chuck and bomb offense with no balance. Final score Buffalo 29 (with a trip to the Super Bowl) and Miami 10.

That's the last time Miami ever came close to going to a Super Bowl.

You're right about one thing. You don't know from game to game what scenarios that teams get into to get them behind the 8 ball. Special teams and turnovers are the wild card in this situation.

But every team is going to have a base philosophy whether it's run/pass or pass/run, 3-4 or 4-3, etc

Some stats do have merit. How do you explain a stat such as when Edgerrin James runs for 100+ yards, the Colts win 96% of their games or when Tom Brady is sacked more than three times, the Patriots lose 60% of their games.

Stats aren't the Gospel. That's why they are called Stats. Baseball stats are very confusing but people use stats to measure hypothetical situations. Sometimes their in the ball park and sometimes there aren't.

Back to the Beck thing without further hijack. I don't see John Beck as a gunslinger and that's what the Dolphins need. I don't know why everyone wants a 6'6 quarterback that can throw the ball through a wall. They usually don't work out (see Ryan Leaf, Jim Yuckenmiller and Dan McGuire). Tom Brady is a smart %$^( quarterback and knows how to use all his weapons like Montana. Take Marvin Harrison away from Peyton Manning and he can't function. Beck has the brains to be a Bob Griese type of quarterback.

I agree that todays commentators are clueless and they don't do their homework like in the old days. they have a stat guy handing them stats as they call the game. Commentators use to actually chart games like coaches but those days are gone. That's why I put the volume on mute when I watch a game. I'd rather chart key plays or get different views from people here on the forum.

[fyo]

Some stats do have merit. How do you explain a stat such as when Edgerrin James runs for 100+ yards, the Colts win 96% of their games or when Tom Brady is sacked more than three times, the Patriots lose 60% of their games.

I'm sorry for plucking out a couple of sentences in the middle of a long reply and just focusing on that. I generally consider it bad etiquette, but I don't have much time right now and while I think we actually agree for the most part, I do want to quickly make a point...

I don't have any problem "explaining" those stats. The Edgerrin James one is the "worse" of the two, and the most common, so let me tackle that: There are basically only two situations in which he would get 100+ yards:

1) The Colts are ahead, so he gets lots of touches. Running takes more time and the risk of losing the ball is smaller.
2) James is slicing through the opponents defense.

In either case, of course the Colts win almost all those games. (As a side note, Aaron Craver's 8 rushes for 72 yards falls solidly in the #2 category).

Anyway, my problem isn't with the statistics themselves. It never is. They are what they are. My problem is with their usage and the conclusions the "talking heads" draw from them:

How often have you seen a game and a stat like that pops up, e.g. the team always wins if the running back runs for more than 100 yards. Talking head #1 quickly asserts that the team needs to give the ball more to the running back, despite the fact that he's fumbled the ball twice and averages 2 yards a carry. Talking head #2 immediately agrees, stressing the "never give up on the run" mantra.

[USArmyFinFan]

All this video showed me was how bad our O-line was.

[Slippery Soap]

If you have to hide John Beck by playing smash mouth football and having him throw only a limited number of times you are only validating the point that John Beck is a bust and we have to hide and protect him from failing like in my video John Beck is a Loser. 

[bsfins]

A little food for thought for all those people think they're So smart....thinking Beck is a total bust......(I mean all this has nothing on a homemade stupid You tube Video... I mean it's on youtube,it's gospel...)

Doug quoting Cam Cameron a couple of weeks ago,that He had no intentions of starting John Beck at all last season..After Cleo Lemon was ineffective the team needed a spark....(in essence,paraphrasing what Doug said) He then went on to talk about the different plays being called while John Beck was in the game,and Cleo Lemon...

But that's not here nor there.....
Some of you people want to judge John beck on this...John Beck started 4 games,played in 5 games...Which is amazing that you can tell he;'s a bust on a crappy team...That's amazing! What NFL team do you work for? People that get paid to make decisions realize that most guy's don't light it up in the first 4 games they start...and They require talent around them.....

A list of Qb's that ...Well took awhile for someone to see they were NFL Quality....

Joe Montana - some people think he's the Greatest QB ever to play the game.....Drafted 3rd round 1979...Started 1 game his rookie year...his 2nd year in the league,wasn't even the full time starter split time with Steve Deberg....Wasn't the full time starter till his 3rd year.....8 time pro bowler,7 time all pro

Steve Mcnair - drafted 3rd over all 1995 ....Started 6 games the first 2 years in the league...Not a Great QB...definately servicable....3 time Pro bowler 1 time all pro...

Brad Johnson - Drafted 1992  Didn't make his first start till...1996...didn't get a consistent chance to start till 1999..May not be a great qb...has a couple of pro bowls to his credit...

Jim Harbaugh - drafted 1st round 1987 Didn't become a full time starter till 1990,1 pro bowl,1 time all pro....

Tom Brady - Yeah he was a 6th round draft choice...but sat a year behind Bledsoe,and 2 games of the 2001 season..before he got his shot....

Drew Brees - Everyone forgets he sat on the bench for a year...Then it took him a couple years of starting before it "clicked" all the sudden he was a good QB...he's a 2 time pro bowler 1 time all pro....

Stan Humphries- Drafted 1988,Didn't make his first start till 1990...Hell had to be traded to the Chargers before someone thought he was a starter....Was 1992 before he was a full time starter....

Matt Hasselback - Drafted by Green Bay in 1998, didn't get a start till he was traded to Seattle in 2001....3 time Pro bowler 1 time all pro....

Rich Gannon - drafted by New England in 1987, got his first start with the Vikings in 1990...Started 3 years with the Vikes...Then went to Washington,then K.C. never really started constantly till he got to the Raiders in 1999...where he became a 4 time pro bowler,3 time all pro....

Marc Bulger- Drafted in 2000 by the Saints didn't get his first start till 2002 With St. Louis...2 time pro bowler....

Mark Brunell- Drafted 1993 by Green bay...Didn't play a start in 1995 With JAX....
he was a 3 time probowler....

I tried to keep it to names most people older than 18 would know.....

It just amazes me,how people think Matt Ryan is the answer, a guy that hasn't played a down in the NFL....and KNOW John Beck is a Bust....after 4 starts.....

Just something to think chew on....while we're making snap judgments....