Rivers? Whitehurst? Trade?

[LongTimeOCBolts]

Originally Posted by Kemp17

A Charlie Whitehurst led team would have been blown out yesterday.

How can you possibly say that?

There is a certain false presumption when you say that we were only in the game in the first game because of Rivers. Says who?

Whitehurst could have made some of those passes, certainly, and may well not have, on the other side of the coin, given the game away.

I don't understand this assumption that the turnover-king quarterback nevertheless gives us a better chance to win than Whitehurst.

I heard some analyst today humorously stating, when it comes to Rivers, "who you gonna believe? Norv, the QB expert? Or your own lying eyes?"

I'm with him. I cannot ignore what I have been seeing with my own eyes for 25 - 30 games.

[Kemp17]

Originally Posted by LongTimeOCBolts

How can you possibly say that?

There is a certain false presumption when you say that we were only in the game in the first game because of Rivers. Says who?

Whitehurst could have made some of those passes, certainly, and may well not have, on the other side of the coin, given the game away.

I don't understand this assumption that the turnover-king quarterback nevertheless gives us a better chance to win than Whitehurst.

I heard some analyst today humorously stating, when it comes to Rivers, "who you gonna believe? Norv, the QB expert? Or your own lying eyes?"

I'm with him. I cannot ignore what I have been seeing with my own eyes for 25 - 30 games.

Rivers had put up over 200 yards and 3 TD's at that point in the game. That's without a running game and with a shoddy offensive line in front of him. And it's the only reason we were in that game at all. If you think Charlie would have been doing that for us, you're deluding yourself.

[LongTimeOCBolts]

Originally Posted by Kemp17

Rivers had put up over 200 yards and 3 TD's at that point in the game. That's without a running game and with a shoddy offensive line in front of him. And it's the only reason we were in that game at all. If you think Charlie would have been doing that for us, you're deluding yourself.

Not at all. He may well have.

More importantly, offensive game plans are drawn up based on the personnel at hand. Who knows what the game plan would have been? Who knows how effective it would have been?

Further, Alexander turned a 20 yard gain (on a routine pass) into an 80 yard touchdown all on his own. Would he have tried less hard for a different QB? I doubt it. And so for our other receptions.

I just get tired of the defense that: "Yes Rivers turned the ball over in a mind-numbing way when it mattered the most, and cost us the game, but we wouldn't have been in the game anyways without him."

Again -- who says?

It's a weak defense, to say the least. It only comes after: 1) No he didn't; and 2) He did, but it was not his fault, both become unavailable. What else is left but to say "okay, he did, but it does not matter because we would have lost anyways" (which is what you are saying).

[Kemp17]

Originally Posted by LongTimeOCBolts

Not at all. He may well have.

More importantly, offensive game plans are drawn up based on the personnel at hand. Who knows what the game plan would have been? Who knows how effective it would have been?

Further, Alexander turned a 20 yard gain (on a routine pass) into an 80 yard touchdown all on his own. Would he have tried less hard for a different QB? I doubt it. And so for our other receptions.

I just get tired of the defense that: "Yes Rivers turned the ball over in a mind-numbing way when it mattered the most, and cost us the game, but we wouldn't have been in the game anyways without him."

Again -- who says?

It's a weak defense, to say the least. It only comes after: 1) No he didn't; and 2) He did, but it was not his fault, both become unavailable. What else is left but to say "okay, he did, but it does not matter because we would have lost anyways" (which is what you are saying).

That's exactly what I'm saying. We would have lost anyways and by a wider margin. Change the gameplan? To what?! Run the ball more (because that was clearly working)? Had we done that, we simply would have gone three and out on nearly every possession, giving up field position and allowing them to wear out our defense. I can already hear the "you can't know that until they try." Well, you're right... I can't know that. I also can't know for a fact that bringing up Edwin Baker and starting him over Mathews would be the key to our success. But I have a pretty darn good idea that it wouldn't come close to working based on the evidence.

Look. You're frustrated. And because of that you'd like there to be an easy solution like just putting in another QB. There isn't one. Either Rivers snaps out of it, or we find a QB in the draft for our future. That's it. Turning to a journeyman backup who couldn't even beat out Tavaris Jackson isn't going to make things any better. It will actually almost certainly make them worse. And no we're not likely to win many games with Rivers playing this way. But he still gives us the best chance to win.

And no, I can't prove what would happen if we started Charlie. But neither can you, and all the evidence of his ability as a starter is stacked on my side of the argument.

[LongTimeOCBolts]

Originally Posted by Kemp17

Well, you're right... I can't know that. I also can't know for a fact that bringing up Edwin Baker and starting him over Mathews would be the key to our success. But I have a pretty darn good idea that it wouldn't come close to working based on the evidence.

Completely apples to oranges. Mathews has not taken the ball from our team, and given it to the other team, 40 times in 25 games. If he had, I'd say to start Battle or Brown. And BTW, I did say that, even after only a few turnovers (far, far, less than Rivers') until I realized this season was over, at which point I said to feed him the rock and see if he's a #1 back or not. Rivers has been given plenty of time to develop, and he's getting worse and worse, not better.

Originally Posted by Kemp17

Look. You're frustrated. And because of that you'd like there to be an easy solution like just putting in another QB.

Yes, I am frustrated. But I am under no illusions that there is an easy solution. But why keep giving the games away, when we have others to throw into the fray, to see if they might, just might, NOT give the games away?

Originally Posted by Kemp17

And no we're not likely to win many games with Rivers playing this way. But he still gives us the best chance to win.

Again -- says WHO?? AND -- if we are not likely to win many games, why NOT test the rest of the available players. Seriously.

[Kemp17]

Originally Posted by LongTimeOCBolts

Completely apples to oranges. Mathews has not taken the ball from our team, and given it to the other team, 40 times in 25 games. If he had, I'd say to start Battle or Brown. And BTW, I did say that, even after only a few turnovers (far, far, less than Rivers') until I realized this season was over, at which point I said to feed him the rock and see if he's a #1 back or not. Rivers has been given plenty of time to develop, and he's getting worse and worse, not better.




Yes, I am frustrated. But I am under no illusions that there is an easy solution. But why keep giving the games away, when we have others to throw into the fray, to see if they might, just might, NOT give the games away?



Again -- says WHO?? AND -- if we are not likely to win many games, why NOT test the rest of the available players. Seriously.

I don't mean this to offend, but says who? Says everyone with any understanding of the quarterback position and what Whitehurst brings to the table. Says our staff that is currently coaching for their jobs. Says any analyst who has even weighed in on the topic (most have not, since the idea of starting Whitehurst is so ridiculous on its face).

If someone wanted to bench Rivers because they want accountability and think he needs some time to get his mind right, I get it. I don't necessarily agree but I understand. But if someone honestly thinks that Whitehurst will give us the best chance to win, I think they're severely misinformed or simply not thinking it through.

[909 Charger]

Originally Posted by Kemp17

I don't mean this to offend, but says who? Says everyone with any understanding of the quarterback position and what Whitehurst brings to the table. Says our staff that is currently coaching for their jobs. Says any analyst who has even weighed in on the topic (most have not, since the idea of starting Whitehurst is so ridiculous on its face).

If someone wanted to bench Rivers because they want accountability and think he needs some time to get his mind right, I get it. I don't necessarily agree but I understand. But if someone honestly thinks that Whitehurst will give us the best chance to win, I think they're severely misinformed or simply not thinking it through.

I've just been sitting here with my popcorn and I know no one's appointed me the referee but...

You win.

[WootMonkey]

Did people not watch Charlie in Seattle?

[LongTimeOCBolts]

Originally Posted by Kemp17

I don't mean this to offend, but says who? Says everyone with any understanding of the quarterback position and what Whitehurst brings to the table. Says our staff that is currently coaching for their jobs. Says any analyst who has even weighed in on the topic (most have not, since the idea of starting Whitehurst is so ridiculous on its face).

Care to back that up?

If you can show me "everyone with any understanding of the quarterback position" stating that we would not have been in a position to win any of the games we have lost without Rivers, I am all eyes. Or that his losses (with his multiple turnovers) would have been blowouts with Whitehurst playing instead.

Our "staff that is currently coaching for their jobs", meanwhile, are about to take a loooonnnnggg trip to Cabo. And by the way, please show me where they said that we would not have been in a position to win any of the games we have lost without Rivers. Or that his losses (with his multiple turnovers) would have been blowouts with Whitehurst playing instead.

"Says any analyst who has even weighed in on the topic." Okay, once again, please show me where they said that we would not have been in a position to win any of the games we have lost without Rivers. Or that his losses (with his multiple turnovers) would have been blowouts with Whitehurst playing instead.

You do realize, don't you, that by making these assertions you are insulting the entire team and coaching staff, right? And the FO?

Your position is that we would never be in a position to win a game without Rivers. That we would be "blown out" of every game without him.

Back it up. Show me the "sources" you referenced above.

[LongTimeOCBolts]

Originally Posted by 909 Charger

I've just been sitting here with my popcorn and I know no one's appointed me the referee but...

You win.

Since you weighed in, you are invited to assist in the challenge above. Re-read the thread, and tell me how Kemp's assertions that we cannot, and I repeat cannot, win a game without Rivers is supported. That the losses, even where Rivers turned the ball over multiple times, would have been worse with someone else at the helm.

I've got my popcorn, too, so I'll wait. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .