Matt Moore is easily the MVP

[CRAZYDOLFAN305]

But he won the game.

Oh my ****ing god!!!

[67Stang]

Matt Moore's new nickname "Sir Fumbles-alot".

[67Stang]

He has more fumbles than TDs.

[Benzhiyi]

Still amazes me that so many are taking so much glee in one of their own players' perceived failure.

Distressing.


---
I am here:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[2413fanphins]

well at the end of the day I guess we can all take solace in the fact that we LOST the ****in game, but our very own matt moore had a better qbr than tony romo and tom brady when he played dallas....

[Benzhiyi]

Perfectly thrown bomb to Marshall? He under threw him terribly as if he was Chad Pennington. Marshall had the corner beat bad and Marshall had to slow down and come back for the ball. Far from a perfectly thrown ball.

Moore missed several intermediate passes that 99% of the QBs in the NFL would've made. He's a average QB that looks good when compared to the terrible QBs we've had since #13.

99%? In a league in which last week's 28 starters included such names as John Skelton, Rex Grossman, Mark Sanchez, Joe Flacco (who've both been all over the shop all season)?

Come on now.


---
I am here:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Benzhiyi]

well at the end of the day I guess we can all take solace in the fact that we LOST the ****in game, but our very own matt moore had a better qbr than tony romo and tom brady when he played dallas....

I'm not pleased we lost, but I'm equally proud of the performance on the road against a team headed to the play-offs when ours could have quit on the season long ago. (See Redskins, Colts, Rams etc.)

What bugs me is there are people on here watching games and clearly willing Moore to fail just so they can bleat about it on here. I'll never comprehend that.

And if we draft a QB and he has a handful of bad games to start out with, you can be damn sure the same thing will happen next year.


---
I am here:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[shouright]

What bugs me is there are people on here watching games and clearly willing Moore to fail just so they can bleat about it on here. I'll never comprehend that.

Comprehend this:

If intelligence and maturity are normally distributed in the population, that means 50% of people are below average in both.

How many of those folks do you think are represented on this message board, where the only requirement for membership is having the ability to register a username and password?

This is why in a forum this big, your "ignore" list should contain no fewer than about a hundred people: the ones who post frequently and exhibit both very poor intelligence and maturity. And unfortunately there are many.

My advice: as soon as you see a post that illustrates the disturbing qualities you're talking about, place that user on "ignore." At that point you'll never have to read anything he or she says again.

You will have also done your part to diminish useless conflict (as opposed to useful conflict) on the board, since people with poor intelligence and maturity are very unlikely to respond to reason in a discussion.

[shouright]

well at the end of the day I guess we can all take solace in the fact that we LOST the ****in game, but our very own matt moore had a better qbr than tony romo and tom brady when he played dallas....

Actually if you like the idea that Matt Moore is performing in a way that's very strongly correlated with winning, indeed you can take solace in that.

[shouright]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't mean that at all. The passer rating statistic is a FORMULA that does not factor in ANYTHING except for the raw numbers. Dropped passes? Errant throws? Sacks? Fumbles? Not accounted for.

Actually dropped passes and errant throws are factored in, in that they diminish one's completion percentage, which is part of the QB rating formula.

Also, there is no reason to think that significant differences exist among quarterbacks in the frequency of sacks and fumbles over the long haul. Consequently, the fact that they aren't accounted for by QB rating is meaningless in terms of its ability to distinguish among quarterbacks in a meaningful way.

And correlation does not equal causation. Teams don't win games because their QB has a higher passer rating

Sure they do, insofar as QB rating is a measure of how well the quarterback plays the game. Winning and losing the vast majority of the time do depend on how the quarterback plays.

You're just completely wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Here's a hint, if you're arguing with everyone else in the world, you might be the person who is wrong.

And you might not be.

Bottom line: although Matt Moore's team may not have won the game Thursday, he personally played in a way that would typically be associated with a record somewhere between 10-6 and 13-3 over the course of a season.

In other words, if you're interested in this team's having a quarterback who can play well enough for the team to one day attain a playoff-caliber record, you can feel good about how Matt Moore played Thursday.

I could be wrong, but I'm personally convinced of my perspective on this issue, so I won't be posting in this thread after this point.