Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum


The Sam Howell Thread

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-2023, 08:45 PM   #301
punch it in
From a Land Down Under
 
punch it in's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: toms river, nj
Age: 52
Posts: 22,419
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins View Post
I think you should be come an agent. I love how you are trying to sell quiet fire as an attribute.

There is a lot to like so far in the SSS we have seen. It is definitely the best I have felt about a QB since 2012.

Well Kirk had a good year or two. But at least Snyder isnít around to fuck it up this time.
punch it in is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-21-2023, 08:46 PM   #302
punch it in
From a Land Down Under
 
punch it in's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: toms river, nj
Age: 52
Posts: 22,419
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonEmouse View Post
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-qb-inde...len-hurts-slip

Even if the team isn't getting the respect 2-0 deserves, Sam is. But I can't see how you can rate some of these guys above him. For me he's performed better than Prescott, Burrow at least, if not Goff and Stafford too.

These rankings are all over the map. Is it based on career or current year?
punch it in is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2023, 09:48 PM   #303
AnonEmouse
The Starter
 
AnonEmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 2,014
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by punch it in View Post
These rankings are all over the map. Is it based on career or current year?
Given they only list 2023 stats, must be this year. Just appears to be pure opinion, no explained logic.
AnonEmouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2023, 10:07 PM   #304
punch it in
From a Land Down Under
 
punch it in's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: toms river, nj
Age: 52
Posts: 22,419
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonEmouse View Post
Given they only list 2023 stats, must be this year. Just appears to be pure opinion, no explained logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonEmouse View Post
Given they only list 2023 stats, must be this year. Just appears to be pure opinion, no explained logic.

What I thought so thus far Joe Burrow is 9? I wouldnít want Joe Burrow starting for my kids pee wee team right now. If I had a kid that played pee wee.
punch it in is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2023, 10:12 PM   #305
BaltimoreSkins
Pro Bowl
 
BaltimoreSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Parkton, MD
Posts: 5,216
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by punch it in View Post
Well Kirk had a good year or two. But at least Snyder isnít around to fuck it up this time.
No you are right I guess I meant as a "rookie"
__________________
EB thinks Sam Savings > Patrick Price
BaltimoreSkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2023, 10:16 PM   #306
BaltimoreSkins
Pro Bowl
 
BaltimoreSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Parkton, MD
Posts: 5,216
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonEmouse View Post
Given they only list 2023 stats, must be this year. Just appears to be pure opinion, no explained logic.
It's the NFL no logic needed.
__________________
EB thinks Sam Savings > Patrick Price
BaltimoreSkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2023, 01:05 AM   #307
That Guy
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: VA
Age: 41
Posts: 17,405
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

burrow's got a 4.2 ypa right now. no idea why he's that high there.
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2023, 11:42 AM   #308
Ruhskins
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,016
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

This is for SFREDSKINS:

__________________
R.I.P. #21
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2023, 12:44 PM   #309
mredskins
MVP
 
mredskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,064
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Good article in ESPN :
https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/sto...son-sam-howell


We knew virtually nothing about Howell as he entered the season as Washington's starter. He fell to the fifth round in the 2022 draft, sat for the majority of his rookie season and started only in Week 18 after Taylor Heinicke urged the coaching staff to play Howell instead. He looked good in that 26-6 win over the Cowboys, but his 19 pass attempts in the game were his only throws of the season.

Well, we now have 99 more attempts of regular-season Howell action to add to our sample. There are things to like. The raw product he puts out there is compelling and sometimes extremely impressive. In terms of negative plays, though, he looks every bit the quarterback who has made four NFL starts. He won't make it through the season playing this way.

Let's start with the positives. Howell is fun to watch when things are working. Some of the throws he has made have been world-class. This throw to Terry McLaurin is both the right decision (deep post versus quarters coverage) and inch perfect. McLaurin has to make a great catch, but this pass is thrown into a spot where only he can come down with the football.

For a 6-foot-1 quarterback, Howell has more zip on his passes than you might think when he gets the time to set his feet and deliver. He's capable of hitting throws to either sideline from the pocket. The 23-year-old also has scrambled for 42 yards and three first downs on five tries, including the game-winning touchdown against the Cardinals. If you catch him on the right snap, he looks like he should have been a top-10 pick.

In whole, though, Howell is too destructive to keep the 2-1 Commanders afloat for long. He admittedly is coming off of a disaster game against a great Bills defense, but no quarterback can survive with this sort of penchant for ending drives. He has a 5.1% interception rate and a 16.1% sack rate through three games. The latter figure is the NFL's worst mark, while the only passer with a more significant interception rate is Jimmy Garoppolo.

Interceptions are more damning than sacks, but I'm more concerned about the sack rate of the two. A 16% sack rate is something out of the 20th century. Howell has been hit on more than 24% of his dropbacks this season; the only quarterback who has been hit more frequently is Russell Wilson.

The propensity to take sacks both runs the risk of injury and makes concepts that would be appealing in the playbook vectors for potential disaster. As an example, Howell's physical ability should make him a candidate to throw on the run. Changing a signal-caller's launch point slows down the pass rush, gets the quarterback outside the pocket, allows him to reduce the progression and creates scramble opportunities. All of that makes his life easier.

NFL Next Gen Stats defines a quarterback on the run as one traveling more than 8 mph. On those plays, Howell ranks last in the NFL in total expected points added (minus-23.0) and EPA per dropback (minus-1.3). The problem? On 18 dropbacks, he is 8-of-13 for 59 yards, but he has thrown an interception and taken five sacks. Some of those are plays in which he is running for his life, but if offensive coordinator Eric Bieniemy can't trust him to run a naked bootleg without taking a sack, it's going to cut off what my friend Nate Tice likes to refer to an "easy button" for young quarterbacks.

The interceptions aren't exactly ideal, either. Howell was a little unlucky to have AJ Epenesa snatch a ball out of the air for a pick-six in Week 3, but Howell's four other interceptions on the season have come on off-platform throws in which he wasn't able to drive the ball. Quarterbacks can't get away with those throws in the NFL unless they have Justin Herbert-level arm strength, and Howell is never going to be that guy. Some quarterbacks make a habit of repeating the same mistake, with Zach Wilson's propensity for throwing late on the run to the middle of the field as an example. Howell has to recognize he can't make those throws and adjust accordingly. Ideally, he's going to be able to anticipate those receivers coming open over the middle of the field earlier, which will prevent defenses from laying waste to him in the pocket.

Even leaving aside the Bills game, Howell wasn't quite as impressive over the first two weeks as it might have seemed. His numbers against the Broncos were inflated by 88 yards on screen passes, which is nearly double the production of any other quarterback on screen passes in a single game this season. Only five other quarterbacks have had games with more yardage from screens over the past five years. Howell had three different screens gain at least 20 yards; the last time that happened in a game was when Nick Foles did it for the Eagles in 2013, which was coach Chip Kelly's first season as an NFL coach. Those are great calls from Bieniemy, but his quarterback wasn't exactly shouldering the load on those plays.

Unlike other quarterbacks on this list, the Commanders have an extremely viable backup. Jacoby Brissett started 11 games for the Browns last season and ranked 10th in Total QBR. His career sack rate is higher than the league average, but at 7.6%, that's about half of Howell's through three games. Crucially, Brissett doesn't turn the ball over, as his career interception rate is just 1.5%. The Commanders rank eighth in points per possession allowed since the start of 2022; their best way of winning games might be by playing defense and protecting the ball on offense.


For now, the Commanders are moving forward with Howell as the starter. Hopefully, what we saw against the Bills was one bad start and a lesson for him to learn as he continues on his path toward becoming a franchise quarterback. With the Eagles coming up Sunday, though, his ability to avoid sacks and protect the ball will be tested. If he can't hold onto it, coach Ron Rivera will have no choice but to give Brissett a try.
__________________
When life gives you paper jams, turn them into paper footballs!
mredskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2023, 12:58 PM   #310
GridIron26
Playmaker
 
GridIron26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Age: 35
Posts: 3,167
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Thanks for sharing the details as I'm not subscriber to ESPN. The assessment seems appropriate and debbie-downer.
GridIron26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2023, 01:06 PM   #311
Ruhskins
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,016
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by GridIron26 View Post
Thanks for sharing the details as I'm not subscriber to ESPN. The assessment seems appropriate and debbie-downer.
Not trying to defend Howell, but I think there's a big difference between players like Sam and Ridder who obviously need development, and the rest of the QBs on that list, who are either veterans that are obviously in decline (Russ, Tannehill) and first-round busts (Wilson and Baker).

Hell, even Ridder has played 3 more games (7 games) than Howell (4 games).
__________________
R.I.P. #21
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2023, 01:11 PM   #312
mredskins
MVP
 
mredskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,064
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by GridIron26 View Post
Thanks for sharing the details as I'm not subscriber to ESPN. The assessment seems appropriate and debbie-downer.
i figure most don't have the subscription

But i feel like it was a fair assessment with his current body of work
__________________
When life gives you paper jams, turn them into paper footballs!
mredskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2023, 01:16 PM   #313
mredskins
MVP
 
mredskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,064
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins View Post
Not trying to defend Howell, but I think there's a big difference between players like Sam and Ridder who obviously need development, and the rest of the QBs on that list, who are either veterans that are obviously in decline (Russ, Tannehill) and first-round busts (Wilson and Baker).

Hell, even Ridder has played 3 more games (7 games) than Howell (4 games).
Its titled six candidates that could get benched; Sam love him or not is definitely a benching candidate

Plus they are not pitting each QB against each other, I am not sure where you are trying to go with your argument. The list could have been 0 or 32 long.

Wilsons play has no bearing on Sam and vice a verses but both are strong candidates for benching.
__________________
When life gives you paper jams, turn them into paper footballs!
mredskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2023, 01:22 PM   #314
Ruhskins
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,016
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by mredskins View Post
Its titled six candidates that could get benched; Sam love him or not is definitely a benching candidate

Plus they are not pitting each QB against each other, I am not sure where you are trying to go with your argument. The list could have been 0 or 32 long.

Wilsons play has no bearing on Sam and vice a verses but both are strong candidates for benching.
I guess by that logic, then they should have included Bryce Young, who was pretty terrible in his first start and is already hurt (durability was a big question given his size).
__________________
R.I.P. #21
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2023, 01:29 PM   #315
mredskins
MVP
 
mredskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,064
Re: The Sam Howell Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins View Post
I guess by that logic, then they should have included Bryce Young, who was pretty terrible in his first start and is already hurt (durability was a big question given his size).
Sure I guess, still doesn't mean Sam shouldn't be a potential candidate for benching

But it is also pretty obvious Bryce has a much longer rope then anyone of the six on that list, considering his draft stock and career starts

The only thing that will bench Bryce this season would be an injury
__________________
When life gives you paper jams, turn them into paper footballs!
mredskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.13000 seconds with 10 queries