Similar to the Boller Poll - Byron Leftwich

[Old#5fan]

In comparison to the Boller poll (since they were similarly drafted in the first round and lost their starting jobs) please vote whether you think Byron Leftwich is an average or below average NFL QB.

[birdsfan4ever]

What does this have to do with anything? I think they are both about the same, first round disappointments that make for a good backup. They are just different type QBs.

[Old#5fan]

An argument could be made that they are both below average as they both have lost their starting jobs. However, statistics indicate that Leftwich is much closer to the league average in almost every category whereas Boller has always been near the bottom in the same stats. In other words I don't see how anyone can arguably vote that both Leftwich and Boller are average. It defies logic and normal unbiased analysis.

[birdsfan4ever]

I guess this is another desperate attempt to make your case that Boller is one of the worst QBs in the league. Leftwich has better career numbers all around, the difference is Boller's numbers have slowly gotten better and Leftwich's numbers have been on a steady decline since 2005.

[NewMarketSean]

All I know is that if I had to pick a QB to build around, I would pick Boller. He's got better mobility, and just as good an arm, if not better.

His field vision may not be as good as Leftwich's, but I think of all things that is what will improve with age.

Leftwich is an oft-injured statue behind the pocket.

That said, to this point, Leftwich has out-performed Boller.

[Old#5fan]

All I know is that if I had to pick a QB to build around, I would pick Boller. He's got better mobility, and just as good an arm, if not better.

His field vision may not be as good as Leftwich's, but I think of all things that is what will improve with age.

Leftwich is an oft-injured statue behind the pocket.

That said, to this point, Leftwich has out-performed Boller.

Which is precisely why a wise man (like me-:p) would think it more prudent to take Leftwich as he is simply a better player than Boller and is more aptly described as average whereas Boller is clearly sub par any way you slice it.

BTW one reason Leftwich is better than Boller (and always will be IMO) is he has much more poise, pocket presence (which you touched on) and accuracy. That compensates for his lack of mobility.

[Miller192]

All I know is that if I had to pick a QB to build around, I would pick Boller. He's got better mobility, and just as good an arm, if not better.

His field vision may not be as good as Leftwich's, but I think of all things that is what will improve with age.

Leftwich is an oft-injured statue behind the pocket.

That said, to this point, Leftwich has out-performed Boller.

Boller has too many turnovers to be a QB to build around. I guess if it's just Kyle versus Byron then I guess I would go with Kyle.

[Old#5fan]

IMO those who voted that both Leftwich and Boller are the same (either average or below average) are inconsistent. Leftwich is statistically superior to Boller in virtually all categories so to rate him the same is illogical and inconsistent.

[NewMarketSean]

IMO those who voted that both Leftwich and Boller are the same (either average or below average) are inconsistent. Leftwich is statistically superior to Boller in virtually all categories so to rate him the same is illogical and inconsistent.

Thanks for baiting us with this poll then. :rolleyes:

Regardless of what the stats say, and I am a stats guy, both these guys are in similar situations as first round QB's who never lived up to the hype and now face uncertain futures because of it. So it really doesn't matter what the stats tell us. They are what they are because of what they've done/didn't do.

Like I said, Leftwich outperformed Boller, but that doesn't mean he is night and day better.

[Old#5fan]

Thanks for baiting us with this poll then. :rolleyes:

Regardless of what the stats say, and I am a stats guy, both these guys are in similar situations as first round QB's who never lived up to the hype and now face uncertain futures because of it. So it really doesn't matter what the stats tell us. They are what they are because of what they've done/didn't do.

Like I said, Leftwich outperformed Boller, but that doesn't mean he is night and day better.

Who said he was "night and day better?" That is your interpretation. However, using any normal logic Leftwich is clearly better in all major stats.

Also, how is this "baiting" as it is merely a poll? What it does show is inconsistencies on this forum among voters. The Boller poll on this same question is very tight on the vote with average slightly ahead. This poll is the same only favoring Leftwich as below average. Again, this makes no sense (the vote on this poll) as how can Boller be average and Leftwich below average when Leftwich is clearly superior in mostly all of the normal QB comparison stats? To me it indicates lack of knowledge by the voters or else bias. However, anyone is free to take from it whatever they ascertain.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I thought stats didn't matter.

[NewMarketSean]

Who said he was "night and day better?" That is your interpretation. However, using any normal logic Leftwich is clearly better in all major stats.

Also, how is this "baiting" as it is merely a poll? What it does show is inconsistencies on this forum among voters. The Boller poll on this same question is very tight on the vote with average slightly ahead. This poll is the same only favoring Leftwich as below average. Again, this makes no sense (the vote on this poll) as how can Boller be average and Leftwich below average when Leftwich is clearly superior in mostly all of the normal QB comparison stats? To me it indicates lack of knowledge by the voters or else bias. However, anyone is free to take from it whatever they ascertain.

I voted for both Boller and Leftwich as average QB's. I agree with you, I don't see how a person can vote for Boller as an average QB and say Leftwich as below average when he does have better stats.

So I misread your above post. Please forgive me oh wise one! ;)

[Old#5fan]

I thought stats didn't matter.

You thought wrong. BTW, are you the same poster who posts on the footballs.future.com forum and is a moderator? (Same screen name, BaltimoreTerp) which is why I ask? Just curious, as I post over there as well.

[Old#5fan]

I voted for both Boller and Leftwich as average QB's. I agree with you, I don't see how a person can vote for Boller as an average QB and say Leftwich as below average when he does have better stats.

So I misread your above post. Please forgive me oh wise one! ;)

At least one poster (Hank Scorpio) did what we were talking about. He voted Boller above average and Leftwich below. I would be interested in reading his explanation for that unless he just made a mistake?:confused:

[PaulFolk]

Has Leftwich ever played for the Ravens, or is there any talk of the Ravens acquiring him? I don't understand the significance of having a poll about this guy, especially in the Ravens forum. Can someone help me make the connection? (The connection in the opening post is tenuous at best, and surely applies to other QBs besides Leftwich.)

[Hank Scorpio]

At least one poster (Hank Scorpio) did what we were talking about. He voted Boller above average and Leftwich below. I would be interested in reading his explanation for that unless he just made a mistake?:confused:

Actually, I didn't vote Boller above average. I voted him "average", as the poll states.

I like Boller better than Leftwich, always have. I think he has a better arm, better mechanics and is more mobile.

[Tony-OH]

IMO those who voted that both Leftwich and Boller are the same (either average or below average) are inconsistent. Leftwich is statistically superior to Boller in virtually all categories so to rate him the same is illogical and inconsistent.


I think they are both below average QBs. Leftwhich could be an average QB but he can't stay healthy because he's so danr immobile and Boller, well, because we all know why Boller is below average. Why is it illogical that Leftwich can still be below average if he has better numbers than Boller? You didn't ask who was better, you asked whether they were average or below average.

[Sports Guy]

IMO those who voted that both Leftwich and Boller are the same (either average or below average) are inconsistent. Leftwich is statistically superior to Boller in virtually all categories so to rate him the same is illogical and inconsistent.

Well, you are wrong...Just because one QB can have better numbers than another doesn't mean both can't be average.

Besides, do you actually think anyone is going to take you seriously in any Boller related poll?

[Mackus]

IMO those who voted that both Leftwich and Boller are the same (either average or below average) are inconsistent. Leftwich is statistically superior to Boller in virtually all categories so to rate him the same is illogical and inconsistent.They are both below average starters and above average backups.

Leftwich is better than Boller, but they are still both below average starters and above average backups. They don't have to be exactly identical players to be in the same general tier/category of quarterback. It has nothing to do with inconsistency.

So they are overall average to slightyly above average QBs. They are worse than most of the league's starters, but better than most of the backups, and better than all of the 3rd stringers. In terms of percentiles, they are probably in the 65-70th percentile.

[NewMarketSean]

I voted for both Boller and Leftwich as average QB's. I agree with you, I don't see how a person can vote for Boller as an average QB and say Leftwich as below average when he does have better stats.

So I misread your above post. Please forgive me oh wise one! ;)

Actually I didn't misread your post. You said you don't see how people could vote that both Boller and Leftwich are average QB's. I disagree. I do however believe that one would be wrong to say Leftwich is below average while Boller is average when Leftwich has better numbers.

I was also going to say the same thing SG said in the initial post where I said I misread your post. I was going to say that Joe Montana is revered as a great QB but doesn't have the same numbers as Favre or Marino. But that doesn't mean he is any less great than those guys. The same can be applied to Boller and Leftwich. One has better numbers but they are still average QB's.

[Old#5fan]

I think they are both below average QBs. Leftwhich could be an average QB but he can't stay healthy because he's so danr immobile and Boller, well, because we all know why Boller is below average. Why is it illogical that Leftwich can still be below average if he has better numbers than Boller? You didn't ask who was better, you asked whether they were average or below average.

That isn't what we were questioning. We were questioning how anyone could vote Boller average and Leftwich below average when Leftwich is statistically superior in virtually every rating category normally used for a QB.

BTW, Hank Scorpio has already answered it. He apparently doesn't put much stock in stats, and I can relate to that type of answer, I just disagree with it in this case because Leftwich just plays better when you observe him in action IMO.

[Old#5fan]

Actually, I didn't vote Boller above average. I voted him "average", as the poll states.

I like Boller better than Leftwich, always have. I think he has a better arm, better mechanics and is more mobile.

Correct. There is no above average choice. Thanks for your answer, but I totally disagree with it. He may be more mobile but that isn't by all that much. His arm and mechanics are truly not any better. Not by a longshot.

[Old#5fan]

Has Leftwich ever played for the Ravens, or is there any talk of the Ravens acquiring him? I don't understand the significance of having a poll about this guy, especially in the Ravens forum. Can someone help me make the connection? (The connection in the opening post is tenuous at best, and surely applies to other QBs besides Leftwich.)

I explained this already but you must have missed it. I made the comparisons polls for these two because the Ravens originally claimed they wanted Leftwich and he was the QB drafted right before Boller. He also has about the same level of experience and lost his job. So there are a lot of similarities regarding these two QB's which is why the poll choice.

[Old#5fan]

Well, you are wrong...Just because one QB can have better numbers than another doesn't mean both can't be average.

Besides, do you actually think anyone is going to take you seriously in any Boller related poll?

Apparently there are a lot of posters on this poll who are confused. The recent debate was how anyone could vote Boller average and Leftwich below average, not voting both average. There was one individual who did this and he has explained. I don't understand why this fairly simple poll is causing so much confusion to some very intelligent posters here at this point in time but I think it must be that the topic shifted during the thread, and it caused the confusion.

[Old#5fan]

Actually I didn't misread your post. You said you don't see how people could vote that both Boller and Leftwich are average QB's. I disagree. I do however believe that one would be wrong to say Leftwich is below average while Boller is average when Leftwich has better numbers.

I was also going to say the same thing SG said in the initial post where I said I misread your post. I was going to say that Joe Montana is revered as a great QB but doesn't have the same numbers as Favre or Marino. But that doesn't mean he is any less great than those guys. The same can be applied to Boller and Leftwich. One has better numbers but they are still average QB's.

Yeah, that is not what I originally posted. What I was more recently questioning in this thread though after viewing the poll is how someone could vote Boller average and Leftwich below average. Of course you are also correct in that I don't view them as equal either.

[Old#5fan]

They are both below average starters and above average backups.

Leftwich is better than Boller, but they are still both below average starters and above average backups. They don't have to be exactly identical players to be in the same general tier/category of quarterback. It has nothing to do with inconsistency.

So they are overall average to slightyly above average QBs. They are worse than most of the league's starters, but better than most of the backups, and better than all of the 3rd stringers. In terms of percentiles, they are probably in the 65-70th percentile.

This is probably the best written answer I have seen but I never thought of averaging out how a QB plays as a backup to how he plays as a starter. To me they have the same flaws whether they start or sit on the bench. I really find that a rather difficult concept to grab ahold. Talent doesn't change by not playing. To me a good backup is somebody who could start an entire season if necessary and their team wouldn't miss a beat. Someone like Don Strock, Earl Morrall or even George Blanda. Boller has never produced like any of those guys. Morrall was MVP one year, and Blanda is in the HOF albeit mostly for kicking.

Boller starting any road game IMO is inadequate whether a backup or starter period and his career performance clearly shows it. Nothing changes having him as a backup. So how could he be viewed as a good backup when he is terrible in at least half of all games he could normally be playing (half of all games are away games)? I personally think a good backup is a QB who would start for maybe half the teams in the NFL. Boller surely doesn't fit that category and neither does Leftwich at this point in time.

[birdsfan4ever]

This is probably the best written answer I have seen but I never thought of averaging out how a QB plays as a backup to how he plays as a starter. To me they have the same flaws whether they start or sit on the bench. I really find that a rather difficult concept to grab ahold. Talent doesn't change by not playing. To me a good backup is somebody who could start an entire season if necessary and their team wouldn't miss a beat. Someone like Don Strock, Earl Morrall or even George Blanda. Boller has never produced like any of those guys. Morrall was MVP one year, and Blanda is in the HOF albeit mostly for kicking.

Boller starting any road game IMO is inadequate whether a backup or starter period and his career performance clearly shows it. Nothing changes having him as a backup. So how could he be viewed as a good backup when he is terrible in at least half of all games he could normally be playing (half of all games are away games)? I personally think a good backup is a QB who would start for maybe half the teams in the NFL. Boller surely doesn't fit that category and neither does Leftwich at this point in time.

So who do you think is a good backup QB?

[Hank Scorpio]

Correct. There is no above average choice. Thanks for your answer, but I totally disagree with it. He may be more mobile but that isn't by all that much. His arm and mechanics are truly not any better. Not by a longshot.

You'd be hard pressed to find a better arm shy of Brett Favre and maybe Brady... and I only say I like Boller's mechanics better because Leftwich's are so bad. He has the longest motion in the league. You should see Matt Katula's impression of him.

Priceless!!!

Let's just say that Leftwich and Tom Trebelhorn as a 3B coach have a lot in common.

[PaulFolk]

I explained this already but you must have missed it. I made the comparisons polls for these two because the Ravens originally claimed they wanted Leftwich and he was the QB drafted right before Boller. He also has about the same level of experience and lost his job. So there are a lot of similarities regarding these two QB's which is why the poll choice.
I don't think you did explain all that earlier, at least not in this thread. I didn't know that the Ravens were choosing between Leftwich and Boller, nor that they were taken in the same draft. That clears some things up.

So are you really asking whether the Ravens should have chosen Leftwich over Boller? Whether Byron Leftwich is currently average or below average has nothing to do with anything, IMO. His success or failure has zero effect on the Ravens, or on Kyle Boller.

[BaltimoreTerp]

This is probably the best written answer I have seen but I never thought of averaging out how a QB plays as a backup to how he plays as a starter. To me they have the same flaws whether they start or sit on the bench. I really find that a rather difficult concept to grab ahold. Talent doesn't change by not playing. To me a good backup is somebody who could start an entire season if necessary and their team wouldn't miss a beat. Someone like Don Strock, Earl Morrall or even George Blanda. Boller has never produced like any of those guys. Morrall was MVP one year, and Blanda is in the HOF albeit mostly for kicking.

Boller starting any road game IMO is inadequate whether a backup or starter period and his career performance clearly shows it. Nothing changes having him as a backup. So how could he be viewed as a good backup when he is terrible in at least half of all games he could normally be playing (half of all games are away games)? I personally think a good backup is a QB who would start for maybe half the teams in the NFL. Boller surely doesn't fit that category and neither does Leftwich at this point in time.

I think this is a time where your age might get in the way of your perception (and this is not meant to be a criticism, for once ;), just that it gives you a different, though not incorrect, perspective then someone else who has not been around as long).

The NFL has added six more teams since the merger, and four more if you go back just a little to 1966. That is between 18 and 30 more quarterbacks added to the league since the time of Blanda and Morrall.

If we had the same players as now in the league then, Boller and Leftwich would probably be average backups for an average team. They might not be able to carry a team for a full season but they can fill in well-enough to either keep a decent team respectable or play a role similar to Dilfer in 2000 (though almost assuradly with more mistakes) on a great team.

Morrall (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MorrEa00.htm) only had one really great year (1968, at age 34), and for his career his TD:INT ratio is almost identical to Boller (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BollKy00.htm) (1.02:1 vs. 1.08:1), as well as their TD% and INT% (percentage per attempt): 3.4 each for Boller, 3.8 each for Morrall.

I think Boller could have Morrall's career if some things can go right for him. Morrall didn't have a good year as a starter until he was 29 on his third team, and Boller will only be 27 next year.

[Old#5fan]

So who do you think is a good backup QB?

To me its a no brainer that the best backups are guys who proved themselves as starters at some point during their career, but may be getting a bit long in the tooth. Specifically, QB's like Kurt Warner and Jeff Garcia come to mind. I also think Dilfer is one of the better backups to have on your team based on his experience, knowledge and poise and Charlie Batch is a talented backup as well.

[BaltimoreTerp]

To me its a no brainer that the best backups are guys who proved themselves as starters at some point during their career, but may be getting a bit long in the tooth. Specifically, QB's like Kurt Warner and Jeff Garcia come to mind. I also think Dilfer is one of the better backups to have on your team based on his experience, knowledge and poise and Charlie Ward is a talented backup as well.

I think you mean Charlie Batch. And he really never had a great year as a starter (and definitely never established himself). And Garcia wasn't even an NFL quarterback until he was 29, and his first year wasn't great either before he weont on his nice run with the 49ers.

If this is the case, though, then really we can't make a judgement on whether Boller can be a good backup until he is older; he'll only be 27 next year.

[Old#5fan]

I don't think you did explain all that earlier, at least not in this thread. I didn't know that the Ravens were choosing between Leftwich and Boller, nor that they were taken in the same draft. That clears some things up.

So are you really asking whether the Ravens should have chosen Leftwich over Boller? Whether Byron Leftwich is currently average or below average has nothing to do with anything, IMO. His success or failure has zero effect on the Ravens, or on Kyle Boller.

No, I am not at all doing that! Both have been failures and lost their starting jobs so there would be no point. I am merely trying to find out the general view of Boller on this forum as to whether he is considered average or below average. In an attempt to see if there may be bias because of him being a Raven and posters would overate him. Using Leftwich as a marker or comparable player should show whether the people voting are consistent.

The fact that Boller is barely being viewed as average on the poll (so far) and Leftwich is being viewed as below average by a wider margin makes me question the knowledge of those voting as well as their bias. That is the purpose of the poll, it was a survey of the board as any poll would be and using two somewhat comparable players at the same position with the same level of experience and a similar career path.

[Old#5fan]

I think you mean Charlie Batch. And he really never had a great year as a starter (and definitely never established himself). And Garcia wasn't even an NFL quarterback until he was 29, and his first year wasn't great either before he weont on his nice run with the 49ers.

If this is the case, though, then really we can't make a judgement on whether Boller can be a good backup until he is older; he'll only be 27 next year.

Yeah, Batch not Ward. IMO Boller has to show he can be better than mediocre as a starter to be given consideration as a good backup. He has not done so and I don't see much chance of it either.

BTW, you have not answered my question I asked previously if you are a Moderator on an NLF football forum that I post on sometimes? There is a mod there with your screen name.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Yeah, Batch not Ward. IMO Boller has to show he can be better than mediocre as a starter to be given consideration as a good backup. He has not done so and I don't see much chance of it either.

BTW, you have not answered my question I asked previously if you are a Moderator on an NLF football forum that I post on sometimes? There is a mod there with your screen name.

Nah.

Trust me, nobody is crazy enough to make a mod of anything.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Yeah, Batch not Ward. IMO Boller has to show he can be better than mediocre as a starter to be given consideration as a good backup. He has not done so and I don't see much chance of it either.

Batch was barely mediocre as a starter; the Lions didn't even want him back.

Dilfer was worse then Boller in Tampa, and even with his time as a "quality" backup and as our starter, he has still thrown 16 more interceptions then touchdowns for his career, and throws a decently-higher percentage of interceptions (and a slightly lower percentage of touchdowns) then Boller.

So the guys you mention have a couple things in common. One, they were all dumped by at least one team because they couldn't start. Two, they are all old and experienced. So, basically we won't know about Boller for a few more years.

[NewMarketSean]

To me its a no brainer that the best backups are guys who proved themselves as starters at some point during their career, but may be getting a bit long in the tooth. Specifically, QB's like Kurt Warner and Jeff Garcia come to mind. I also think Dilfer is one of the better backups to have on your team based on his experience, knowledge and poise and Charlie Batch is a talented backup as well.
Garcia was a back-up for one year in his career. I don't think you can really call him a back-up QB. And I love Trent Dilfer for what he did for the Ravens in 2000, but he's never been a good starter or back-up.

As for Warner, he stunk in NY, but all the sudden played well when he had one of the best WR tandems in the NFL at his disposal.

[Old#5fan]

Batch was barely mediocre as a starter; the Lions didn't even want him back.

Dilfer was worse then Boller in Tampa, and even with his time as a "quality" backup and as our starter, he has still thrown 16 more interceptions then touchdowns for his career, and throws a decently-higher percentage of interceptions (and a slightly lower percentage of touchdowns) then Boller.

So the guys you mention have a couple things in common. One, they were all dumped by at least one team because they couldn't start. Two, they are all old and experienced. So, basically we won't know about Boller for a few more years.

I guess I can't really dispute your post as it is logical and sensible. I still think Dilfer has much more poise than Boller will ever have which a huge reason why I don't think Boller will ever be considered a good anything except maybe mop up man when the game is over or out of hand.

[NewMarketSean]

I guess I can't really dispute your post as it is logical and sensible. I still think Dilfer has much more poise than Boller will ever have which a huge reason why I don't think Boller will ever be considered a good anything except maybe mop up man when the game is over or out of hand.

So in the end, a QB who throws more picks than TD's "but looks good in the pocket" and has "poise", is better than a QB who has managed to throw more TD's than INT's (or at least as much) and doesn't exude the same poise?

I'm sorry, but are you trying to date a QB or are you trying to win with a QB?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I guess I can't really dispute your post as it is logical and sensible. I still think Dilfer has much more poise than Boller will ever have which a huge reason why I don't think Boller will ever be considered a good anything except maybe mop up man when the game is over or out of hand.

Well, my only point is that, based on how you are judging the other guys, there is no way to judge Boller for 5-10 more years until he gets to the same point as those guys.

See Tony and Scottie, we can behave ourselves from time to time! :D

[Old#5fan]

So in the end, a QB who throws more picks than TD's "but looks good in the pocket" and has "poise", is better than a QB who has managed to throw more TD's than INT's (or at least as much) and doesn't exude the same poise?

I'm sorry, but are you trying to date a QB or are you trying to win with a QB?

No, but a QB lacking poise will rarely win a big game. Do you honestly think Boller could ever win a superbowl game? Heck, I don't think he can win a playoff game even. I predict the closest he will ever come to coming up big with a major win was the Patriots game. I believe that particular game will be the high watermark of Boller's career. It was clearly the best I have ever seen him play considering the level of competition. I honestly doubt if he will ever get many more chances like that as a career backup or worse seems to be his fate.

[Old#5fan]

Well, my only point is that, based on how you are judging the other guys, there is no way to judge Boller for 5-10 more years until he gets to the same point as those guys.

See Tony and Scottie, we can behave ourselves from time to time! :D

I do understand your point but if QB's with poise like Dilfer don't pan out as starters how much hope do you realistically hold for the hyper, nervous, anda happy footed Boller? A leopard doesn't change his spots now does he?:p ;)

[BaltimoreTerp]

I do understand your point but if QB's with poise like Dilfer don't pan out as starters how much hope do you realistically hold for the hyper, nervous, anda happy footed Boller? A leopard doesn't change his spots now does he?:p ;)

How much "poise" did Dilfer (or Batch, etc. for that matter) have as starters?

[Old#5fan]

How much "poise" did Dilfer (or Batch, etc. for that matter) have as starters?

Dilfer had just enough during that stretch in 2000 when I believe he went 11-1 as a starter. His poise was better than his ablity and always has been. Boller is the other way around, which IMO makes him worse. I personally find a QB without poise or very little is akin to a receiver who can get open but drops the ball or a running back who makes good runs but fumbles the ball frequently and at terrible times. I honestly cannot recall watching any NFL QB with so many games under his belt still look as nervous and happy footed as Boller does even now during far too many instances in a game. Dilfer just lacks the arm and talent needed to be a great starter. Boller lacks the poise and decision making in a big, big way. And obviously when your offensive leader (which is normally the QB) lacks poise or leadership he loses the faith and confidence of his teammates. Its only human nature.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Dilfer had just enough during that stretch in 2000 when I believe he went 11-1 as a starter. His poise was better than his ablity and always has been. Boller is the other way around, which IMO makes him worse. I personally find a QB without poise or very little is akin to a receiver who can get open but drops the ball or a running back who makes good runs but fumbles the ball frequently and at terrible times. I honestly cannot recall watching any NFL QB with so many games under his belt still look as nervous and happy footed as Boller does even now during far too many instances in a game. Dilfer just lacks the arm and talent needed to be a great starter. Boller lacks the poise and decision making in a big, big way. And obviously when your offensive leader (which is normally the QB) lacks poise or leadership he loses the faith and confidence of his teammates. Its only human nature.

But again, you are talking about Dilfer in his seventh pro season. At age 28. Next year, Boller will be 27 in his sixth pro season.

Dilfer lost his job for good in his equivalent season to what Boller is going into, then left for a new team (us) in the offseason.

I don't think Dilfer had a whole lot of "poise", being replaced by Shaun King, who then led the Bucs to the conference championship game.

[Old#5fan]

But again, you are talking about Dilfer in his seventh pro season. At age 28. Next year, Boller will be 27 in his sixth pro season.

Dilfer lost his job for good in his equivalent season to what Boller is going into, then left for a new team (us) in the offseason.

I don't think Dilfer had a whole lot of "poise", being replaced by Shaun King, who then led the Bucs to the conference championship game.

Again, maybe you don't understand the difference between poise and just plain poor performance. I don't think poise has ever been the big problem with Dilfer as it has with Boller. There is no way on earth Boller would have been able to function as well as Dilfer did during that stretch run in 2000 because he lacks basic poise. You need poise first to get the most out of your game. Boller has the arm but lacks the basic ingredient to make the most of his arm which is poise.

You might be right in that Boller over time (after aging and getting snot knocked out of him) may eventually calm down in the pocket as Billick always publicly believed. Even so, he would need a dramatic improvement in that regard to elevate his game and I just don't see it happening. Troy Smith for example, as a rookie has far more poise than Boller as do many good QB's like Rothlesberger for example. Eli Manning is an interesting case as I don't think he lacks poise but makes a lot of iffy decisions which I believe a lot of is due to overconfidence not lack of poise.