Nassib's lousy career #s vs AQs |

Nassib's lousy career #s vs AQs


Scout Team
Aug 29, 2011
I like Nassib a little, but I think the "jury is still out" on whether he is a top-50 type, or even top-75 type, QB.

Oftentimes, the backup QB is the most popular player on the team. But that is clearly not the case with this team, as the board loves Nassib in a GMAC type way. Anytime any poster questions whether Nassib is "the answer," the board unleashes a fury of insults and impassioned defenses about how Nassib is not the problem and he is the best QB we have had in a long time. The recent thread about "audition time on offense" demonstrates that 90% of the board members agree with Marrone that Nassib is special. After a long slew of simply lousy QBs, I completely understand the optimism regarding Nassib.

But here is my question: Is Nassib really much better than Andrew Robinson was? And if the answer is anything other than, "yes he is world's better," then aren't we perhaps being myopic in our conclusion that our offensive struggles are not Nassib's fault?

Nassib has lit up the Maines, Colgates and Akrons of the world, but he has struggled against AQ competition, and has been absolutely awful in Big East games. From the numbers, it is not completely clear that Nassib is any better than our former TE Andrew Robinson. If Nassib is not clearly better than Robinson, then he is not special: he is merely adequate, and we may very well have better options.

Let's look at Nassib's numbers:

Nassib starting against non-AQs

Opp. ...QB Rating .......Yards
Rhodes Island......172........318
rough averages: .....173........237 (very good numbers)

Nassib starting against AQs

Opp. ...QB Rating .......Yards
South Florida...118.......129
West Virginia...90........63
Boston College......106........147
Kansas State...205.......239
Wake Forest...160........178
rough averages: .....116........173 (poor numbers)

So against an AQ team, we can expect roughly a 116 passer rating and 173 yards from our QB. I cannot think of any self-respecting AQ team that would be happy with such numbers.

Did our rough patch under GRob skew our expectations so far that these numbers are anything other than unacceptable?

Posters on this board are quick to throw our OL and WRs under the bus. I agree that our C has been awful and we sorely lack a flanker, but Pugh will play in the league, Chew will get a look, and Ant will likely get a camp invite. Nassib will not even get a look unless he dramatically improves.

Let's take a look at Andrew Robinson's numbers for comparison:
Robinson starting against non-AQs

Opp. ...QB Rating .......Yards
Miami (OH).....121......236
rough averages: .....126........250 (ok numbers, worse than Nassib)

Robinson starting against AQs

Opp. ...QB Rating .......Yards
West Virginia...85........100
rough averages: .....116........178 (identical numbers to Nassib)

So basically, Nassib has been just as good as Andrew Robinson against AQs (i.e. lousy), while putting up fewer yards but a significantly better QB rating against non-AQs (good stuff from Nassib, mediocre stuff from Robinson). Small sample size issues aside, the stats don't support the notion that Nassib is all that much better than Anderson.

Now I know what everyone is going to say, "Nassib has so much less help than Andrew did."

Posters will begin to wax poetic about the "stocked" teams that Andrew was fortunate enough to run. It's a joke really: Mike and Taj were great, but Andrew's OL was much, much worse and the 2007 running game was nonexistent. Last season, Nassib enjoyed a great running game featuring a 1,000 yard NFL back and a good change of pace back. In 2007, Andrew had no help from the running game, with our leading rusher being Brinkley with his 327 years and 3.34 yard per carry. No matter how many excuses posters try to make for Nassib, it is clear that he is not world's better than Andrew Robinson. And if "not being much better than Andrew Robinson" doesn't make our QB a "problem area," then I don't know what does.

So I'll get the ad hominem attacks out of the way: yes, I must be a moron, a fake fan, a troll, part of the idiot parade, yada yada. Please, call me out and make fun of how I claim to have worked professionally with the NFL (RIP al): please do. Go ahead, redirect my IP so I can't access the site, give me the typical treatment. All the conformists who parrot whatever the moderators say are welcome to pile on. Obviously, I know nothing about sports, stats, Syracuse, or the color orange.

But "numbers don't lie," and Nassib has not been a very good Quarterback so far in his career: and he has been downright lousy against AQs. The floor is open for excuses and ad hominems.
What's your point? Robinson self destructed after his breakout season. Nassib's been good this year, and most numbers came from last year when it was his first season starting. Who do you want to start if Nassib's not that good?

I just want to know why you spent all this effort to compare a QB who played under a completely different system to Nassib if you aren't just trying to bash him
my point is pretty obvious.

Andrew was a lousy AQ QB and he was a big part of the problem for a terrible offense and a 2-10 team. We kicked Robinson to the curb without a second thought, so that we could play a point guard who had taken 4 years off from football at QB.

Obviously, Marrone came in and went with his guys, and Robinson wasn't one of his guys. I get that, and support his decision.

What I question, is why the board thinks Nassib is special, whereas Andrew was not. I don't think this difference in opinion is justified by the numbers. Instead, I think that Nassib has, so far, been a pretty lousy QB (roughly on par with Robinson), but thankfully the book is not written on his career yet.

Most posters on this board passionately disagree with the suggestion that Nassib has been a lousy QB, or that he ought to bear significant blame for the struggles of the offense.

The fact that they played in different systems isn't fatal to my argument: especially because Nassib's system is supposed to be more passer friendly.
Nassib's a good QB who is not surrounded by much talent. It's just hard to put up numbers with receivers who don't get open and drop the ball and an offensive line that has trouble blocking.
I suggest watching the games rather than crunching numbers.
Nassib's a good QB who is not surrounded by much talent. It's just hard to put up numbers with receivers who don't get open and drop the ball and an offensive line that has trouble blocking. I suggest watching the games rather than crunching numbers.

Do you also think that Andrew Robinson was a "good QB" who was "not surrounded by much talent?" Or are you saying that Robinson was blessed with better talent and coaching, so the number don't matter?

A 116 QB rating with 178 yards per game is either good enough, or not good enough. Nassib and Robinson were surrounded by similar talent, so the excuses that Nassib is disadvantaged compared to Robinson don't make any sense.

(1) Robinson was roughly "good enough for SU," or
(2) Nassib might not be.

I suggest watching games and crunching numbers.
Nassib's a good QB who is not surrounded by much talent. It's just hard to put up numbers with receivers who don't get open and drop the ball and an offensive line that has trouble blocking.
I suggest watching the games rather than crunching numbers.

You can't argue with him ... he works for the NFL ... scrubs Goodell's toilet and has a business card to prove it ... or something along those lines.

Forum statistics

Latest member

Online statistics

Members online
Guests online
Total visitors

Top Bottom