Jump to content

Carson Wentz... or this haul?


mistakey

Carson Wentz... or this haul?  

123 members have voted

  1. 1. What would you rather have

    • Carson Wentz
      66
    • This haul
      57


Recommended Posts

On 9/5/2017 at 10:16 AM, EaglesPeteC said:

Wentz. 100%

Without a starting QB it doesn't matter how many picks you have. You can't compete. Eagles have a shot to actually do well this season (and beyond) because they have Carson Wentz. Browns ceiling is 5 games. I'd do that trade over and over and over again if I am the Eagles. 

But Wentz ain't going to take the Eagles anywhere 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hornbybrown said:

A lot of people in here saying Wentz has played well.

 

No he hasn't!!

Whatever makes you feel good about the 2 games the Browns about to win this year 

 

The 7 games Wentz won his rookie year would rank him tied for 3rd in wins amoung Browns QB's since 1999. Enjoy those picks.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Whatever makes you feel good about the 2 games the Browns about to win this year 

 

The 7 games Wentz won his rookie year would rank him tied for 3rd in wins amoung Browns QB's since 1999. Enjoy those picks.....

I'm a Brown's fan and I agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Whatever makes you feel good about the 2 games the Browns about to win this year 

 

The 7 games Wentz won his rookie year would rank him tied for 3rd in wins amoung Browns QB's since 1999. Enjoy those picks.....

So the fact the Browns didn't win games is your argument that Wentz played well?  Bless your heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, tyler735 said:

Doesn't he have to play well before you can say "continues to play well"? At this point we don't know that Wentz is even close to a franchise QB. He had a mediocre at best rookie season with an under 80 QB Rating. Funny enough even Cody Kessler in limited opportunities had 92.3 QB Rating on a much worse Browns team. Not to say he's better long term than Wentz, but it shows Wentz has a ton to prove yet to be considered a decent QB. I'll take the Browns haul as they have several players in this deal that can be quality starters.

I should've said consistently plays well.  I saw some games last year where he looked outstanding.  Obviously they averaged out with the poor games to being average.  The Steelers game he posted a 125.9 QB rate against.  That's a top 10 defense last year, with the 16th ranked pass D if I remember correctly.  He also had games that would be considered good (90+ QB rate - using stats and a QB rate since I didn't see all of them) against the Browns, Lions, and Cowboys twice.  For a rookie, especially one from NDSU, I'd also say his games against the Bears, Falcons and Redskins were good at 86.6, 86.7 & 86.7.  So that's 7 games where I'd say he did good enough to make me choose him over the Browns.  The Vikings, Seahawks, Giants, Bengals and Ravens made him look terrible though.  So 5 great, 5 terrible, 3 good, leaving the rest, 4, as "average".  

So to get more in depth here, to qualify the rankings, here's how those teams ranked in QB Rate allowed on the year:

Giants #2 - he was bad and low end of average against them
Vikings #4 - he was bad
Bengals #5 - he was bad
Seahawks #9 - he was bad
Ravens #13 - he was bad
Steelers #14 - he was phenomenal
Cowboys #24 - he was good twice
Browns #31 - he was good
Lions #32 - he was good

So he was bad against the good teams, and good against the bad, with the Steelers being the exception to the rule.  But at least his bad games, were against good teams instead of playing down to the level of the competition as some do.  I couldn't believe the difference in seeing him play against the Steelers and then later on the Vikings.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...