Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="fanfanclubclub, post: 37220, member: 787"] 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 [I]really[/I] 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 Akron.......151.......229 Maine.......204.......260 Colgate.......170........169 Rhodes Island......172........318 Toledo........169........213 ____________________________________ rough averages: .....173........237 (very good numbers) Nassib starting against AQs Opp. ...QB Rating .......Yards Washington...101........202 South Florida...118.......129 Pittsburgh.....95........231 West Virginia...90........63 Cincinnati......120.......125 Louisville.....110........155 Rutgers.......114........214 Connecticut....90........171 Boston College......106........147 Kansas State...205.......239 Wake Forest...160........178 USC.....129........230 Rutgers.......73........169 _____________________________________ 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 Buffalo.......131.......265 __________________________________________________ rough averages: .....126........250 (ok numbers, worse than Nassib) Robinson starting against AQs Opp. ...QB Rating .......Yards Washington...125........199 Iowa......58........79 Illinois.......133........208 Louisville.....253........423 West Virginia...85........100 Rutgers.......92.......158 Pittsburgh......87........46 Connecticut......52.......59 Cincinnati.....158........419 ____________________________________ 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?