Bullshiznitz

Didn't notice until the replay, they had the incorrect score up after our 4th TD for the entire next drive (showing 27-13 rather than 28-13).  

Re-watching really does hammer home that they had no answer at all to the inverted wishbone.  That last drive they had to stop us and knew we were going to run, and didn't come close to slowing us down (easily could have scored at the end if we wanted to).  

Well didn't take me long to calculate, heres a 6 game to 6 game comparison from this year to last years offense: 

2014 Passing:   997 Yds, 166 yds/game, 42% completion pct, 6.1 yds/att,  3 TD - 7 INT, 51.1 QB Rating

2015 Passing:  1110 YDS,  185 yds/game, 63.2% completion pct, 8.16 yds/att, 12 TD - 7 INT 150.6 QB Rating 

OK, wow, now you see the difference.  Looks like a vast majority of QB production came in 3 games last year (Tulsa, Cincy & Memphis), which didn't happen until later in the year.  Vast, vast improvement over last year at this point. 

2014 Rushing:  770 Yds, 3.92 yds/carry, 8 TD

2015 Rushing:  1399 Yds 5.3 yds/carry, 11 TDS

Again, just an astounding difference at this point.  105 yards rushing more per game.  

Hopefully things can continue to improve.  

Just a quick comparison update to last years offense too: 

2014    Passing:  2361 YDs, 196 yds/game, 49.2% completion pct, 6.49 Yds/att, 11TD - 11 INT 107.6 Passer Rating  (12 games)

2015    Passing:  1110 YDS,  185 yds/game, 63.2% completion pct, 8.16 yds/att, 12 TD - 7 INT 150.6 Passer Rating  (6 games)

Slightly behind yards wise, and may end that way, but overall being much more efficient in the passing game and have already passed the TD total in just a half year. 

2014    Rushing:  1295 Yds 3.4 yds/carry, 11 TDS (12 games)

2015    Rushing:  1399 Yds 5.3 yds/carry, 11 TDS (6 games)

This is where you see the real improvement.  Already passed total yards in just half a year and equaled the TD's.  All this while everyone knowing that we're going to run.  

If I get a chance, I'll try to see where we were after 6 games last year to see just how far ahead this offense is compared to last year.  

Looking through the projections just gives a grim reminder of how bad the AAC bowls are.  Houston could go 11-1 or 10-2 losing out to Memphis in the west, and their reward is to play Western Kentucky?   Ugghhhh

While that may be true, theres probably enough Big 12 alumni in total in the area to make it a Big 12 city.  Honest question, can you watch just about any big 12 game on TV there?  I would venture to guess absolutely.  So they're not adding a new market by adding Houston.  They may gain viewership in that market, but they're not expanding their exposure at all.  Memphis (or ideally us) gets them into a new market.  It likely ensures all big 12 games are now part of a regional coverage in that market.  Meaning that in Memphis instead of getting Syracuse v Va Tech, you would get Texas Tech v Okie State.  It gains all big 12 teams exposure in that market.  

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but the writing is essentially on the wall already.  ESPN has spent boatloads upon boatloads of money recently locking up several sports (and conferences), likely to the point of being overextended.  They're already feeling the pinch, with Disney making them make large operating budget cuts.  Im pretty sure this has already been discussed on here (probably pages upon pages ago), but Disney/ABC/ESPN is also the company most likely to feel the pinch as cable continues to cut back as they are the company most out of line on subscriber fees.  

Its going to be really difficult for them to outbid Fox on this, especially since Fox and the B1G already have a partnership with their network.  Nothings for certain, but odds are leaning heavy on Fox to get the B1G contract. 

It doesn't make a lot of sense for them.  Theres nothing bad about Houston, but the Big 12 already has a lot of exposure in the state of Texas.  The conference as a whole has by far the lowest exposure of any of the P5, only playing conference games in 5 states with 4 of those being lower in population (Okl, Iowa, Kansas & WV).  For comparison, the B1G plays conference games in 11 states, the SEC 11 states, and the ACC 9 states (10 for basketball).  All those conferences get exposed to a lot more markets just on regional games.  If the Big12 is going to keep up with the other conferences next go around (no matter how TV contracts look then), they need to expand their footprint.

I've had this worry that ESPN is doing it best to make sure UCF/USF isn't part of the Big 12 expansion talks.  They've more or less put a vast majority of their eggs in the ACC/SEC basket.  They're likely to lose the BIG10 to Fox completely when negotiations come up, so they want to keep the southeast US on lockdown for them.  If the Big 12 expands in Florida and gives Fox Sports more exposure into the southeast, and possibly hurts some of their brands with giving UCF/USF big money (likely hurting Miami the `most), then its not good for their business.  While the Big 12 could greatly benefit from mass exposure in a big state like Florida, ESPN doesn't benefit at all from that move.  

ESPN is the 

They should just partner with Publix.  Free Publix sub (6") with every ticket.  We'd have that place sold out in no time 

Realistically it would be smart for the Glazers to do something like that.  Most of the cost can be written off on the tickets, and they stand a chance to profit from it from increased concession sales/parking.  

This.  Thats why this has to be an obvious troll thread.  Or at least I like to think so.  Its hard to tell now a days, there are people this detached from reality sadly.  

You can really say that about any game.  Outside of the botched punt return for them, and the extremely stupid late hit by their safety, I'm not sure I saw anything out of the ordinary in mistakes for them.  We also had some instances and made some mistakes, where if cleaned up, the score could have been a lot worse for them(bad clock management before half costing possible TD, missed FG, allowing a fake FG to succeed, several punt block attempts that missed by inches).  

Cuse is a better team than UConn.  As long as we come out with the same intensity (and this is really the big variable), and same offensive game-plan, than I see a 10+ pt victory.  If we come out flat, or go conservative playcalling on the road, then a loss is possible. Hopefully the guys are finally tired of losing and come out with that same intensity.  

Its a combo of everything you stated in the first post.  For one, they were over the top lucky during the Fiesta Bowl season.  Realistically that should have been another 9-4 type team for them.  Solid good years, but nothing dominating like their record made it appear.  

From there, its sanctions finally catching up to them.  Its losing their arguably best recruiter because of that fiasco (Kelly).  Its losing other decent assistants and then replacing them with our rejects (Bresnahan). Its not having a viable QB after Bortles.  And most importantly for them, its poor recruiting on the OL, followed by key injuries on the OL.  No kidding, they likely have the worst OL in Div I.  Its going to be brutally ugly for them this weekend against Temple's front seven.  

Throw in an aging coach who seems to be loyal to a coach in over his head (OC Keys), and its a full on recipe for disaster. 

Just taking a quick glance at things from last year to this year:  

2014 Offense TD's = 22 (through 12 games)

2015 Offense TD's = 19 (through 5 games)

Even more telling is the run game.  While I think our difficulties passing last year overshadowed it some, our running numbers were not very good at all last year: 

2014 Rushing Offense: 1295 Rush Yards, 11 TD's (12 games)

2015 Rushing Offense: 1124 Rush Yards, 10 TD's (5 games)

We'll likely exceed the rush production from all of last year in just 6 games this year.  I knew we were bad last year, but now seeing the numbers that an average at best offense is putting up this year in comparison, we were just mind-boggling bad last year.  

This thread was worth it just for that GIF

Wow, watching this game, they are really really really bad.  In pretty much all facets of the game.  Undisciplined, the OL is laughable, and play calling is almost as bad as ours.  Getting Holman back may allow them to win 1 or 2 games this year, but that might be a stretch.  They're in the middle of what was suppose to be their easy stretch (Furman, Tulane and UConn in 3 of 4 games), and they've already lost to Furman and this game is not looking good.  The only other chances for wins for them are UConn and us, and honestly both of us have looked far better than UCF has at any point.  They may be realistically heading down an 0-12 season. 

For that one drive that SB came in against MD it was pass heavy and he made throws that QF hasn't made in 3 games w/the same O line. Same is true for the FAMU game as far as passing is concerned. The plays are in the playbook, whether CWT decides to use them or not seems to be linked to which QB is in.

Its been reported that CWT think QF can throw better than he could during his college career at QB. I think speaks to CWT and why we are seeing QF in at QB. He sees himself in the kid and hey ultimately it is his decision to play who HE thinks is best. Several people here agree with him, so what are we going to do...

What throws did he make that QF couldn't?   Last I checked, box score reads 0-3 with an INT.  Was it the pass he overthrew the receiver by 10 yards?   Or was it one of the two times the other team caught the ball?   It seems some of you have made it abundantly clear that after 2 games we definitively know thats what all QFs passes look like, right?   So it looks like he's right on par with Steve Young....errrr....Stephen Bench.  

 

 

Rankings after week 3

WKU 65

La Tech 71

USF 95

 

 

So what people will say this means is that 1) Taggart brought in great talent at WKU and someone else is coaching them up, 2) Skip is still benefitting from the prior coach and, 3) Taggart is still playing with the lack of talent left by Holtz.    Is that about right?

Winner Winner, give this man his chicken dinner!

 

I personally don't get these comparisons.  Holtz could go on and win a national championship at La Tech, and that still would have nothing to do with him being fired here.  His tenure here was an unmitigated disaster, which i doubt most would argue against.  He was handed at the very least what could be considered an average team, and through poor recruiting, poor assistant coaching hires, and a complete lack of player development, proceeded to drive this program into the ground.  It doesn't matter how good he was at the place before, or how good at the place after.  If he failed here, he failed here and deserved to be shown the door.  The same will be true of Taggart if he's unable to show improvement here.  Doesn't matter much what he did at WKU if he can't seem to find the right formula in doing that here.  

 

 

We are wasting lots of time and probably have better things to do with our energy w/ a discussion that will have very little relevance in the end. I will spend a little more to show that I am not intentionally doing anything biased just trying to inform.  

 

First you tried to go with the 5 most recent games.  For one, there was no reason to choose that many as QF hadn't played that many games at that point, and it was obvious you choose that as to not include Bench's miserable Maryland game from last year.  Even with that cherry picking, the was barely any difference in passing numbers.

I choose the last 5 games b/c those are the most relevant to our situation now, nothing more. In fact his performance against Houston was worse than MD and was included in those numbers of his last 5 games, so there is no cherry picking involved, its chronological order. If you can't understand how relevant time is in this argument so be it. Furthermore I also have included SB overall QBR of 43.9 for the entire last season which was better than MW's of 43.4 who was given a much better opportunity to be the starter and failed. SB was NOT given a single entire week of practice as the starter last year and that's a fact jack!   

 

You were comparing from Bench (5 min in the 4th quarter against Memphis, 9 min in the 4th quarter against UCF, and a little less than the whole second half of FAMU) vs Flowers (1st half against SMU, 1st half against FAMU, and whole game against FSU).  Even if we take FAMU as equivalent (which is a stretch), you were comparing a total of 14 min playing time (less than 1 quarter) for Bench against worn down prevent defenses to 1.5 games of Flowers verse starting defenses of SMU and top 10 FSU.  How is that remotely an equivalent comparison?  And even with this extreme cherry picking, the difference in numbers was marginal at best.  So in Bench's absolute best case scenario racking up stats against worn down prevent defenses, he still could barely could outperform QF in passing data (again while ignoring the huge disparity in running ability).

If you don't like how the numbers play out with the data we have available to us that is a fair point. I don't either. Unfortunately that is what we have. If you can find a more equitable comparison then I would love to hear it. But to suggest I am cherry picking data is a weak argument. You could say that there is not enough data to make a one-to-one comparison and I would agree. All I am saying is that QF has shown his ability and we should know what we have in the other QB who was supposedly only edged out and has numbers to suggest that he might be what we need now. That means giving him the same opportunity you have given MW and now QF.

 

And please stop with the charade of Bench not getting a fair shake.  He's had 10+ pass attempts in 9 games here.  4 games of 20+.   He's had more than enough opportunities to prove himself. He's a good kid, a fighter and good team mate by all accounts.  But he's not remotely a good Div-1 QB.  To start him over QF at this point, is not only giving up on the season, but making the exact same mistake CWT made last year (and that a vast majority on here complained about) in not giving your starter a chance to grow.  

So wait first you say that you don't like the comparison b/c its not one to one...I say lets try to make it a more equitable comparison by giving SB the same opportunity that QF has been given, then you say that would be giving up on our season. Why b/c more of the same with QF would result in a different outcome? I would concur that giving QF more playing time would undoubtedly help him improve, but I would argue it would be at the cost of a losing season. There is no way to know if SB would not help us unless we give him a fair shot. What does that mean, let him get 2-3 games where he is number one. Just like he did with MW and just like he has with QF. The worse that happens is he stinks it up and QF becomes our starter again. At this point what do we have to lose?

 

QF is not a good QB either, but taking any relative comparable data, the offense as a whole performs better under him than it did under Bench.  The absolute best argument you can make for Bench is he's "about the same".  But you don't drop a true sophomore likely to grow and improve "about the same" for a senior, is what he is, and gone after this year "about the same".  It makes virtually no sense in the short term, and is borderline moronic long term.   

Your statement of relative comparable data  where QF ends up on top is just false. The only fair comparsion we have on both QBs is the FAMU game. The Adjusted QBR below takes into account downs, quarters, every down, QB involvement, extending plays with legs, sacks, ints etc, as well as the poor defense:

 

SB

Raw: 93.4 Adj: 81.6

QF

Raw: 82.6 Adj: 59.8 

 

That is a 36.45% difference in SB's favor.

 

Listen I am not trying to imply that I KNOW SB is going to be the solution, I am not sure. All I am saying is that there is an argument to be made that he could give us an opportunity to win.

 

Furthermore I also have included SB overall QBR of 43.9 for the entire last season which was better than MW's of 43.4 who was given a much better opportunity to be the starter and failed. SB was NOT given a single entire week of practice as the starter last year and that's a fact jack!   

Those numbers statistically speaking are basically identical.  So if the backup during his opportunities proves he is no better than the starter you're committed to, it makes no sense to swap them out.  If MW "failed" with those numbers than couldn't we say Bench "failed" too?  I don't see how thats not true by your own words. 

If you don't like how the numbers play out with the data we have available to us that is a fair point. I don't either. Unfortunately that is what we have. If you can find a more equitable comparison then I would love to hear it. But to suggest I am cherry picking data is a weak argument.

I've given you the more equitable comparison, you just choose to continually ignore it.  Again, Bench played basically the entire game twice last year (and twice the season before that).  He got the majority of first team snaps prior to one of those games (Houston).  How a QB leads the offense for an entire game is a much more equitable comparison as it takes small sample size issues out (like leading the team for only 1-2 drives vs 13-14) when using appearances (which is what you are using) vs actual games.  What you have is the equivalent of trying to compare relief pitcher stats with starter stats.  It doesn't work.  We have whole games to compare, you just don't want to because they completely destroy your argument.  That's why you've failed to address them in any of your responses.  

You could say that there is not enough data to make a one-to-one comparison and I would agree. All I am saying is that QF has shown his ability and we should know what we have in the other QB who was supposedly only edged out and has numbers to suggest that he might be what we need now. That means giving him the same opportunity you have given MW and now QF.

Again, you somehow in the same argument say that after 2 complete games and 59 PA in his sophomore season, that QF is what he is and its more than enough to evaluate him, then on the other side say 4 complete games and 177 career PA at USF is not nearly enough to know what we have in Bench, a senior.  Read that again.  Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? 

So wait first you say that you don't like the comparison b/c its not one to one...I say lets try to make it a more equitable comparison by giving SB the same opportunity that QF has been given,

Again, he's been given more opportunity than QF's has.  This isn't my opinion.  Its verifiable fact.  He's had more PA, more game appearances and more full games than QF.  This isn't even arguable.  

then you say that would be giving up on our season. Why b/c more of the same with QF would result in a different outcome?

And more Bench is somehow going to give you a different outcome?   Again, we have a far greater sample size with Bench.  We know what he is, and its not good.  

I would concur that giving QF more playing time would undoubtedly help him improve, but I would argue it would be at the cost of a losing season. There is no way to know if SB would not help us unless we give him a fair shot.

And there is no way of knowing if QF would help us win without giving him a fair shot.  See how that can be played.  

What does that mean, let him get 2-3 games where he is number one. Just like he did with MW and just like he has with QF. The worse that happens is he stinks it up and QF becomes our starter again. At this point what do we have to lose?

We have 2-3 games to lose as well as further development of a QB who is very likely to be at least your backup QB next year.  If we're going to lose, I'd rather us lose with a purpose (developing a needed QB) than play merry-go-round-the QB for 2 straight seasons for no discernible purpose.  

Your statement of relative comparable data  where QF ends up on top is just false.

Its not one bit.  If you compare starts to starts, complete games to complete games (however you want to dice it), then QF's passing numbers, his running numbers and the overall offensive numbers for the whole team are all better.  Again, ALL better. 

I'll leave it at that.  I'm sorry, my analytical engineer side hates emotion based arguments, but even more, emotion based arguments with incorrectly used data (memo to bullpen trolls, make a wild claim with erroneously used data and you'll have me hook line and sinker).  And the call to start Bench is nothing more than an emotion based argument.  Its wanting to throw **** against the wall strictly to see what sticks, with no care for short term or long term consequences.  

All I know is IF we get behind against Memphis, CWT better have some mid range pass plays for QF to throw. I'm not sure if SB is a better passer than QF (actually they both are pretty bad) but if coach keeps running the ball hoping for 8 minute TD drives then we are dead

While I may defend the use of QF over Bench, I won't defend some of the playcalling.  Things need to drastically improve there.  I'm still baffled that in year 3, with 3 great RB's that we have virtually never used a RB screen pass.  I honestly can't even remember one during the CWT era.  Maybe we have and they failed miserably so they just blend in with all the other crap plays, but I cant recall them. 

 

 

 

One of many of your posts through the 17 pages of the "Start Bench!" thread:

Finally, look at [bench's numbers over the past 5 games]. If we can get this kind of production from the QB we will go bowling for sure! The TD to INT ratio should end any notion that he is a turn over machine. Further that avg passer rating for the last 5 games would put SB currently in the top 40 QBs of 2015. Those of us asking to "SEE" SB I believe are fully justified.

Yeah that is a great post isn't it Thanks for reposting...

Still not sure how that supports your straw man argument that QF is losing us games. That is just supporting my argument that I think SB is good enough to get a shot at QB and might win us games. See the differences? If we get a good lead QF has the type of game where we would might be able to grind out a win if our D is good enough.

 

As stated previously, our offense is too one dimensional. With the USF version of the read option, the only option is to run, unless someone is fully wide open down field. Taggart wants QF to win the game with his feet but as we've all seen, that is not going to happen when the defense always knows your running. 

 

Every defense we have played outside of FAMU just spy's the qb since they know we're not athletic enough at WR to beat them downfield. If we were we'd be playing 4 and 5 sets all day.The only way any qb beats a team with their feet is through improvisation. Daniels and Grothe went through their progressions and then made defenses pay with their athleticism if nothing was there. 

 

When QF is in, we don't throw enough and that pisses people off. Say what you want, but QF hasn't thrown even remotely enough for anyone to have an opinion on how good of a passer he is. However, QF has done a good job overall of protecting the ball while he's in. With SB in, we throw much more, but the kid has a gunslinger mentality which at times has lead to stupid stupid picks. He is a toss up, because when he plays his best, he can make some really nice throws. 

 

I'm in 100% agreement that SB and QF are not big threats at the position and it is hard to say one is the "better" option for this team. I just don't think it will matter who is in with the current play calling via Taggart. With that said, change the game plan by Memphis to feature some easy throws for SB and I'd be completely fine with him playing. I think he is plenty mobile enough for this system. However, I'd really like to see QF have the chance to throw the ball more. 

 

Thank you bullzfanatic lol. You have given me hope that I am not beating my head against the wall. 

 

I agree with just about everything you have said. The only point of contention that I would make is that I think QF doesn't make those throws but b/c he can't run them but that is speculation on my part. Only the coaches know what's really going. What I do know is CWT has in the past put QF in there with a limited playbook in the past (SMU) and that against FAMU SB made throws that made our offense look much more balanced and QF did not. I also know that CWT's seat is on fire and he has clearly shown his desire to give QF an opportunity to succeed by leaving him in the entire games against FSU and MD. If he could make those intermediate throws he would have made them by now IMO. I did see hope in QF and he actually made 2 throws that were more intermediate against MD. To me that means he is learning which is a good thing. In fact I wouldn't be mad if QF started again against Memphis but I would have a really short chain on him and make the decision to give SB 2-3 games after that. One conference loss against what seems to be a good team is not the end of our season. Any more than that might very well be though.

 

I am not 100% sure that IF we start SB he would be MUCH better than QF though his numbers do seem to suggest he could. All I am saying is at this point lets give him a shot and put him in a position where he is setup to succeed. That means getting all the first team reps for 2-3 games and not throwing him in off the bench cold without practicing which is fielded on game day. If he fails then the season is done and the experiment is over and let QF develop.

 

They don't one bit, but if continuing to ignore that makes you feel better, go for it.  I guess better to be delusion-ally happy than realistically sad.  

 

 

If you are going to hold that drive against SB then you are just showing your colors IMO..

I think your use of numbers is selective and shows nothing of any real substance, so I provided comparable numbers to demonstrate that even under your metrics SB measures miserably. FWIW I don't think either of them are any good as it stands now, but I also don't think either is the sole cause of our problems.

Can you sincerely not understand how what you did is not equivalent? It seems to me that I put numbers up that those who disapprove of SB and every excuse under the sun is used including illogical statements like the one above.

We want to know who can win now let'slook at the last 5 most recent games...o your cherry picking

Ok let's look at a direct comparison when both played against FAMU...o that team sucks

Let's remove FAMU from the equation and see how QF has done the last two full games...your numbers have no substance...

It doesn't matter how you slice it QF right now is not better than SB.

 

Actually quit the opposite.  You talk about not being equivalent, yet you continue to try to use comparisons that are by no means equivalent.   

First you tried to go with the 5 most recent games.  For one, there was no reason to choose that many as QF hadn't played that many games at that point, and it was obvious you choose that as to not include Bench's miserable Maryland game from last year.  Even with that cherry picking, there was barely any difference in passing numbers.  

When this was pointed out, you moved the goalposts to 3 games.  But for one, appearance does not equal game.  You were comparing from Bench (5 min in the 4th quarter against Memphis, 9 min in the 4th quarter against UCF, and a little less than the whole second half of FAMU) vs Flowers (1st half against SMU, 1st half against FAMU, and whole game against FSU).  Even if we take FAMU as equivalent (which is a stretch), you were comparing a total of 14 min playing time (less than 1 quarter) for Bench against worn down prevent defenses to 1.5 games of Flowers verse starting defenses of SMU and top 10 FSU.  How is that remotely an equivalent comparison?  And even with this extreme cherry picking, the difference in numbers was marginal at best.  So in Bench's absolute best case scenario racking up stats against worn down prevent defenses, he still could barely could outperform QF in passing data (again while ignoring the huge disparity in running ability).  

Why is it that you don't want to compare their last few whole games for each?   The last few starts of each?   Their career numbers?   I know why, as does any body else.  

And please stop with the charade of Bench not getting a fair shake.  He's had 10+ pass attempts in 9 games here.  4 games of 20+.   He's had more than enough opportunities to prove himself. He's a good kid, a fighter and good team mate by all accounts.  But he's not remotely a good Div-1 QB.  To start him over QF at this point, is not only giving up on the season, but making the exact same mistake CWT made last year (and that a vast majority on here complained about) in not giving your starter a chance to grow.  

QF is not a good QB either, but taking any relative comparable data, the offense as a whole performs better under him than it did under Bench.  The absolute best argument you can make for Bench is he's "about the same".  But you don't drop a true sophomore likely to grow and improve "about the same" for a senior, is what he is, and gone after this year "about the same".  It makes virtually no sense in the short term, and is borderline moronic long term.   

 

^^^ you do realize that we got the ball back early in the 4th down 11, right?  And our offense had just gotten done manhandling the Maryland D and getting a TD? 

 

A TD from Maryland being happy to play prevent defense and let USF eat 8 minutes up. That's what they call a Pyrrhic victory. Couldn't afford more 8 minute drives.

 

You might have a point if that drive happened in the 4th quarter and we scored with like 5 min left.  But it happened in the 3rd quarter and we scored in the 3rd quarter.  No team defense is "happy" to let it get down to an 11pt (2 score) game with an entire quarter still to play.  Even if we took another 8 min on that first drive in the 4th quarter, there still would have been 5:30 min left in the game with it being a one score game.  Again, no teams going to be "happy" about that.  There's enough things to complain about on Saturdays game without making stuff up.  

 

There are no numbers that show Bench being a good QB.

He has had plenty of opportunities.

There are plenty showing he could be servicable and that is what we need.

What do you suggest we do?

 

At this point, I'm going to just chalk it up to you being a relative of Bench's.  

There is absolutely nothing in his history that shows him being a serviceable QB. This isn't Kean we are talking about where we don't know what he is, we know what Bench is. He's had far far far more of an opportunity to prove himself than Flowers and has failed miserably in pretty much every single chance.  

Wow, I thought at the very least that the best thing that would have come from the debacle on Saturday is that we wouldn't have to deal with this absurd line of thinking after watching that disastrous Bench drive.  You guys who have been moaning and whining for the past 2 weeks got exactly what you wanted, and as some of us others predicted, it did no good (in fact caused far more harm).  He was able to impressively somehow worsen his career completion percentage to an absolutely impressive 46.9% over nearly 180 pass attempts while adding another INT.  Nothing about that says "accurate passer".  If we start Bench, we are giving up on the season.  He's had more than enough opportunities, and at this point of his career, he is what he is.  Atleast with Flowers you should continue to see improvement.  

Oh, and last year Bench + White combined for a total of 12 TD's last year.   Flowers has accounted for 7 already in 3 games.   This years team has more problems than just QB play.