Just looking for cutoffs in these categories

Dec 18, 2024
2:06:20pm

Charles Darwin Truly Addicted User

Seems like a 14% increase isn’t much to go from putrid to average

There is a big difference in the ranking but perhaps not really in rating

This message has been modified

Originally posted on Dec 18, 2024 at 2:06:20pm

Message modified by Charles Darwin on Dec 18, 2024 at 2:06:57pm

Report problem with this ad

Charles Darwin

Bio page: Charles Darwin
Joined: Mar 21, 2020
Last login: Dec 18, 2024
Total posts: 15,750 (149 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

I love CB that will argue over the craziest things. It is not slander to say that Slovis was not good for BYU.

kimdaddy35 Former Fly Half

1:23pm

But BYU would have been better with a healthy Slovis than newbie JR in the final

mudpupper

1:25pm

Not sure about that at all

2FarGone

1:31pm

Long term yes. But for that year, Slovis was easily the better option

mudpupper

1:37pm

Slovis did take over during a time of pathetic OLine play

donnerstag

1:29pm

This. We failed Slovis, not the other way around.

tacallaway

1:35pm

I am not trying to make Slovis a scapegoat. I know our O-Line was crap. But even

kimdaddy35

1:38pm

It’s much more likely both were true. It was a ba offensive line and Slovis was a bad QB

TCuz

1:38pm

In retrospect, it was a mistake for both BYU and Slovis

donnerstag

1:49pm

For being a senior, I was surprised at some of his bad habits

Huge Manatee

1:34pm

For how highly touted he was ... I was surprised how inaccurate he was.

AsianCoug

1:51pm

Yes, I think a big part of that was his footwork

Huge Manatee

2:04pm

He was putrid in ARod's system.

BlueFever

1:37pm

Someone not afraid to say the truth.

kimdaddy35

1:38pm

Interesting how a player can look both bad and good in a “system” — almost as though there isn’t a “system” but rather

Zach Morris

1:43pm

Slovis is almost strictly a pocket passer; Retzlaff is almost the opposite.

BlueFever

1:47pm

It’s not a “system” but it is skillset oriented. Slovis just wasn’t very good regardless of the “system”. It’s similar

Zach Morris

2:36pm

A coach has to have some kind of system or there's no point in having a coach.

BlueFever

3:04pm

If 122 is putrid is 139 bad?

Charles Darwin

1:48pm

No it is 55th out of 119 qualifiers. A 122 rating would be 103rd.

kimdaddy35

2:00pm

Just looking for cutoffs in these categories

Charles Darwin

2:06pm

A rating isn't like yards where it is a 14% increase in production.

kimdaddy35

2:17pm

The rating is explicitly based on production. The NFL uses a different one than

Charles Darwin

2:52pm

Did 81% mean GMs rating? It’s not a percentage.

Charles Darwin

3:26pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad