Even though this article is mostly about Fernando Mendoza's draft stock, it breaks down the statistics of many different QBs, including Reed's. Take a look at his numbers about 2/3s down the page. His Negative Play Rate (NegPL%) which is the sum of all sacks, interceptions, and fumbles lost divided by the total number of plays (not snaps) a quarterback played (sacks+interceptions+fumbles lost plays) and his pressure-to-sack rate (P2S%) are unsurprisingly, not good.

https://www.nbcsports.com/fantasy/football/news/the-big-red-flag-in-fernando-mendozas-nfl-draft-profile

Stats have no meaning!!!! Look at the scoreboard at the end of the gams. That's the only stat that counts. You can post great stats on Reed all day long, fact is he's a decent 2nd string quarterback, nothing more!

Cajun Ag 86 said:

---

You have to have a complete team. Not even JFF could win a title by himself. Reed is certainly capable of winning a title with the right team around him.

---

Okay I agree but I've gotta push back on the term about "by himself." To be VERY CLEAR, Johnny had a really great defense, an elite OL, and a great WR group.

aeon-ag said:

---

Stats have no meaning!!!! Look at the scoreboard at the end of the gams. That's the only stat that counts. You can post great stats on Reed all day long, fact is he's a decent 2nd string quarterback, nothing more!

---

Ya ever heard of Jacob Degrom? Stats matter, it's not just W's and L's when looking at an individual.

Very, very few QBs don't have weak spots in their game. Even at the pro level, many guys have them. I just think Klein tried to stay unpredictable too often, but our offense was good enough that it should have been more about just doing what we do great than it should have been trying to beat the opponent in chess.

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

Cajun Ag 86 said:

---

You have to have a complete team. Not even JFF could win a title by himself. Reed is certainly capable of winning a title with the right team around him.

---

Okay I agree but I've gotta push back on the term about "by himself." To be VERY CLEAR, Johnny had a really great defense, an elite OL, and a great WR group.

---

JFF year 1 had a serviceable defense, not great.
A high powered offense can help mask a defense.

JFF year 2 had a sh*t defense.

---

Big disagree. 2012 wasn't elite but the defense was great. Never gave up 30, both losses coming when opponent was held to 24 or less. We only had 2 close games that year. The defense clinched the game at Bama with an INT. The other close games was Ole Miss, we would've shut them out in the 4th if we hadn't muffed a punt on our 6 yd line to end the 3rd

Alpha Texan said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

Cajun Ag 86 said:

---

You have to have a complete team. Not even JFF could win a title by himself. Reed is certainly capable of winning a title with the right team around him.

---

Okay I agree but I've gotta push back on the term about "by himself." To be VERY CLEAR, Johnny had a really great defense, an elite OL, and a great WR group.

---

JFF year 1 had a serviceable defense, not great.
A high powered offense can help mask a defense.

JFF year 2 had a sh*t defense.

---

Big disagree. 2012 wasn't elite but the defense was great. Never gave up 30, both losses coming when opponent was held to 24 or less. We only had 2 close games that year. The defense clinched the game at Bama with an INT. The other close games was Ole Miss, we would've shut them out in the 4th if we hadn't muffed a punt on our 6 yd line to end the 3rd

---

Gave up 57 to LaTech, barely escaped.
And a "great" defense doesn't give up the points we did to some of those teams in some of those games.
Helps tremendously when an offense jumps out to a big lead and makes the other team be more 1-dimensional .

Didn't say they sucked. They were solid. But we've got different definitions of great, apparently. And that's ok.

So this is looking at one game worth of stats for Reed? That seems like a credible amount of data.

The only mention of Reed in that article is on a chart for negative play rate in the playoffs. His rating is bad, but it's literally a rating for one game: his worst game of the season, in a 20+ mph wind against the best defensive line in the country, which went on to reach the championship game.

I understand that there's a debate about Reed and how good he is. Reasonable minds can disagree. But if you're using this article for a data point, you need to look up the definition of "sample size" and how it factors into statistical analysis. That chart is completely useless and says nothing about Reed other than that he had a bad game against Miami, which everyone knows.

jt16 said:

---

aeon-ag said:

---

Stats have no meaning!!!! Look at the scoreboard at the end of the gams. That's the only stat that counts. You can post great stats on Reed all day long, fact is he's a decent 2nd string quarterback, nothing more!

---

Did you even read the OP?

---

Didn't have time for that. Had to take a nap.

I gotta say, I'm getting tiredhead of these new threads popping up weekly about how Marcel doesn't have "it". If we keep this up at this rate, we're going to be convinced he's the worst qb in the conference!

Before I'm willing to totally write him off, I'd like to see him in the new scheme and with new coaching. The more I get away from the season, the more I am convinced that he wasn't being coached up nor really playing to his strengths. He's not a pocket passer and he needs receivers running routes with enough depth that will open up his scrambling game. All that said, no, I don't think he has the "it" factor, but I get the sense that Elko has built this team so well around the other parts, especially the defense, that he won't have to be "it" for them to get back to the playoffs and win a game.

Fishwrangler11 said:

---

I gotta say, I'm getting tiredhead of these new threads popping up weekly about how Marcel doesn't have "it". If we keep this up at this rate, we're going to be convinced he's the worst qb in the conference!

Before I'm willing to totally write him off, I'd like to see him in the new scheme and with new coaching. The more I get away from the season, the more I am convinced that he wasn't being coached up nor really playing to his strengths. He's not a pocket passer and he needs receivers running routes with enough depth that will open up his scrambling game. All that said, no, I don't think he has the "it" factor, but I get the sense that Elko has built this team so well around the other parts, especially the defense, that he won't have to be "it" for them to get back to the playoffs and win a game.

---

Doesn't sound like you'll get to see either, with all the internal promotions

He's better than Mond. I still have no idea how Mond got drafted in the third round. Good agent i guess.

The Vikings coach couldn't believe it either.

aeon-ag said:

---

Stats have no meaning!!!! Look at the scoreboard at the end of the gams. That's the only stat that counts. You can post great stats on Reed all day long, fact is he's a decent 2nd string quarterback, nothing more!

---

When judging individuals, individual play doesn't matter. Just wins. Got it. Ignore that Drake May and Carson Beck made it to their respective championship games

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

Cajun Ag 86 said:

---

You have to have a complete team. Not even JFF could win a title by himself. Reed is certainly capable of winning a title with the right team around him.

---

Okay I agree but I've gotta push back on the term about "by himself." To be VERY CLEAR, Johnny had a really great defense, an elite OL, and a great WR group.

---

JFF year 1 had a serviceable defense, not great.
A high powered offense can help mask a defense.

JFF year 2 had a sh*t defense.

---

Big disagree. 2012 wasn't elite but the defense was great. Never gave up 30, both losses coming when opponent was held to 24 or less. We only had 2 close games that year. The defense clinched the game at Bama with an INT. The other close games was Ole Miss, we would've shut them out in the 4th if we hadn't muffed a punt on our 6 yd line to end the 3rd

---

Gave up 57 to LaTech, barely escaped.
And a "great" defense doesn't give up the points we did to some of those teams in some of those games.
Helps tremendously when an offense jumps out to a big lead and makes the other team be more 1-dimensional .

Didn't say they sucked. They were solid. But we've got different definitions of great, apparently. And that's ok.

---

The 2012 defense had a very good starting lineup. The only problem is it had zero depth. We only had 14 players that got significant playing time. In the La Tech game, two of the starters (both DBs as I recall) sat it out due to a suspension and the La Tech receiver that got drafted high ate our lunch.

Once that team got rolling, most games started with either the offense scoring, defense getting a stop or vice versa for the first couple of drives to where we got a big lead. Then, the second half consisted of lots of defensive subs going in and they would get shredded and give up lots of yards and points.

Bottom line is you can't look at the overall stats for that defense to talk about the quality of the starting defense.

I like Reed.
I think there were offensive coaching deficiencies.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

Cajun Ag 86 said:

---

You have to have a complete team. Not even JFF could win a title by himself. Reed is certainly capable of winning a title with the right team around him.

---

Okay I agree but I've gotta push back on the term about "by himself." To be VERY CLEAR, Johnny had a really great defense, an elite OL, and a great WR group.

---

JFF year 1 had a serviceable defense, not great.
A high powered offense can help mask a defense.

JFF year 2 had a sh*t defense.

---

Big disagree. 2012 wasn't elite but the defense was great. Never gave up 30, both losses coming when opponent was held to 24 or less. We only had 2 close games that year. The defense clinched the game at Bama with an INT. The other close games was Ole Miss, we would've shut them out in the 4th if we hadn't muffed a punt on our 6 yd line to end the 3rd

---

Gave up 57 to LaTech, barely escaped.
And a "great" defense doesn't give up the points we did to some of those teams in some of those games.
Helps tremendously when an offense jumps out to a big lead and makes the other team be more 1-dimensional .

Didn't say they sucked. They were solid. But we've got different definitions of great, apparently. And that's ok.

---

The 2012 defense had a very good starting lineup. The only problem is it had zero depth. We only had 14 players that got significant playing time. In the La Tech game, two of the starters (both DBs as I recall) sat it out due to a suspension and the La Tech receiver that got drafted high ate our lunch.

Once that team got rolling, most games started with either the offense scoring, defense getting a stop or vice versa for the first couple of drives to where we got a big lead. Then, the second half consisted of lots of defensive subs going in and they would get shredded and give up lots of yards and points.

Bottom line is you can't look at the overall stats for that defense to talk about the quality of the starting defense.

---

I don't disagree with any of that.
To me, they were serviceable. Solid, but not "great".
How many draft picks did it produce? Two.
Damontre Moore and Sean Porter.
How many did the following year's D produce? Zero.
The year after that? Zero.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

Cajun Ag 86 said:

---

You have to have a complete team. Not even JFF could win a title by himself. Reed is certainly capable of winning a title with the right team around him.

---

Okay I agree but I've gotta push back on the term about "by himself." To be VERY CLEAR, Johnny had a really great defense, an elite OL, and a great WR group.

---

JFF year 1 had a serviceable defense, not great.
A high powered offense can help mask a defense.

JFF year 2 had a sh*t defense.

---

Big disagree. 2012 wasn't elite but the defense was great. Never gave up 30, both losses coming when opponent was held to 24 or less. We only had 2 close games that year. The defense clinched the game at Bama with an INT. The other close games was Ole Miss, we would've shut them out in the 4th if we hadn't muffed a punt on our 6 yd line to end the 3rd

---

Gave up 57 to LaTech, barely escaped.
And a "great" defense doesn't give up the points we did to some of those teams in some of those games.
Helps tremendously when an offense jumps out to a big lead and makes the other team be more 1-dimensional .

Didn't say they sucked. They were solid. But we've got different definitions of great, apparently. And that's ok.

---

The 2012 defense had a very good starting lineup. The only problem is it had zero depth. We only had 14 players that got significant playing time. In the La Tech game, two of the starters (both DBs as I recall) sat it out due to a suspension and the La Tech receiver that got drafted high ate our lunch.

Once that team got rolling, most games started with either the offense scoring, defense getting a stop or vice versa for the first couple of drives to where we got a big lead. Then, the second half consisted of lots of defensive subs going in and they would get shredded and give up lots of yards and points.

Bottom line is you can't look at the overall stats for that defense to talk about the quality of the starting defense.

---

All true, but they were not a "great" defense

Great defense was Indiana's this past season

They were a slid defense that knew if they hit a couple of stops early the offense would put the game out of reach

Except the bama game

They almost cave bs k to beat us: we're a few yards away from doing it and we needed a couple of turnovers to stop them from coming back and beating us

Solid defense, not great

Bama had a better defense than us that year, we just had a better offense

Our problem last two years was our running game disappeared when we met any defense with a pulse.

Tough to get so one dimensional wven with that Oline we had last year and win championship

Alpha Texan said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

Cajun Ag 86 said:

---

You have to have a complete team. Not even JFF could win a title by himself. Reed is certainly capable of winning a title with the right team around him.

---

Okay I agree but I've gotta push back on the term about "by himself." To be VERY CLEAR, Johnny had a really great defense, an elite OL, and a great WR group.

---

JFF year 1 had a serviceable defense, not great.
A high powered offense can help mask a defense.

JFF year 2 had a sh*t defense.

---

Big disagree. 2012 wasn't elite but the defense was great. Never gave up 30, both losses coming when opponent was held to 24 or less. We only had 2 close games that year. The defense clinched the game at Bama with an INT. The other close games was Ole Miss, we would've shut them out in the 4th if we hadn't muffed a punt on our 6 yd line to end the 3rd

---

Top half or top 50-60 total D was serviceable

Quote:

---

Stats have no meaning!!!! Look at the scoreboard at the end of the gams. That's the only stat that counts. You can post great stats on Reed all day long, fact is he's a decent 2nd string quarterback, nothing more!

---

They probably have meaning when they support YOUR argument.