Pretty straight forward question. Interested in the responses.
Last 4 Games. 111 for 152 for a 72.83% completion average. 1260 yards total or 314 per game. 8.3 yards per pass attempt. 11.35 yards per completion. 6 TD's to 3 INT's for a 2:1 ratio. Average QB Rating of 104.33 with a low of 97.1 & a high of 109.4.
Burris is 77 for 127 for 59.87% completion average. 828 yards total or 182 per game. 6.52 yards per pass attempt. 10.75 yards per completion. 4 TD's to 3TD's for a 1.33:1 ratio. Average QB Rating of 69.83 with a low of 47.9 & a high of 98.8.
Bad Henry showed up in the RedBlacks OT loss the other day. In overtime he got sacked and took his team out of field goal range. Just couldn't bring himself to throw it away when he had ample opportunity. Just wish that team was a little better though.
I didn't vote due to the question but Henry in this system he is used to with these players that he knows would have far better numbers imo.
ZC for me even though I think HB might be better in some games depending on the style of game than ZC because of Burris’ experience and ability to avoid really getting clocked it seems.
I agree that part of why Hank's numbers are not that great is because of his supporting cast - just how many receivers have dropped passes this season in Ottawa?!! :oops: However, his career is almost done and while I wondered a bit at first when Zach was signed in the off-season, by the time the season began I was totally on board with him being the starter and would not want to have Hank back (much as I liked him when he was here) - especially for the $$$ that the OttRBs are paying him! Just imagine who we WOULDN'T have if Hank was making close to 10% of the team's cap! IMO the team is better with a young talented QB who has shown he can win games in tough situations and who will only continue to improve. Here's to a LONG career for Zach as a Ticat!
Agreed totally Zach attack is the future. It's just not a fair question.
Not sure who this Colloaros fellow is but I would want Zach as my srarter. My concern is at backup should Zach get injured.
Agreed. Let's not forget the awesome numbers Hank put up here the last 2 seasons. Wonder what the Cats could have accomplished if Burris had Orlondo's currently effective defense.
I also wonder what their QB numbers would be if Hank were still here and Zach was playing for that Ottawa coaching staff and team.
My ideal scenario would have been to see Zach behind Burris for a season or two.
It can be quite fun discussing hypotheticals, but fairly meaningless.
My vote is for Zach.
IMO It is a fair question,
We all know what Hank is capable of and now we can clearly see what Zach brings.
We are finally getting a glimpse of what Austin saw all along in Zach!
And I'm not sure what a srarter is and whether I would want Zach to be that. :cowboy:
We'd have probably won some of those close ones with Burris in there and have 6 or 7 wins now. The guy never seems to get injured and wouldn't have had any learning curve.
That being said, I'll still take Zach without hesitation. I don't know if I'd feel the same way if Toronto and Montreal had 7 wins right now, but knowing we're still very much in the thick of things, Zach has played so well since returning that I actually have more confidence in him winning NOW than I would Burris, plus he's 13 years younger!
I'm voting the same way Coach Austin did. Enough said. :rockin:
nah not fair or since we know how Burris can play can we go back and take any 4 game stretches from last year or year before?
I personally hate the percentage/ qb rating stats, it doesn't tell the whole story
Loaded with a bucket of hindsight... I chose ZC
You have to keep in mind the business side of things. Zach was signed as a starter and would not have come to be a backup. Burris would not agree to taking less money in order to accommodate both of them. It was an either or situation and Austin had to look more toward the future.
while I do agree with your second statement, Burris wouldn't have never took a pay cut and understandable so, I don't agree with Zach coming here without being a starter. regardless of what he is paid he was still fighting for his spot.
but the question was basically who's playing better Burris/Zach
We lost most of those close games without Zach and might have won at least a few of them had he been playing but I get your point. You are assuming that Hank would have avoided the hit and therefore wouldn't have been injured and we wouldn't have been without our starter. However had Hank been the recipient of that hit, he likely would have been injured too. All inconsequential now of course.
On the business side of things - which free agents would we be without on defense too had Hank been signed for anywhere near what he wanted? I wonder whether the budget would have been able to stretch to bring in/back Butler, Lawrence. Laurent and of course more recently Hickman (although paying him for part of a season isn't as big a hit). Did I miss anyone (aside from Koch)? We have gone through growing pains that we all would like to have avoided but the team is better in the long run for bringing in a young QB sooner rather than later.