The Pauser wrote:
My comment about Jennings was my own observation. He had that deer in the headlights look every time he snapped the ball, leading to bad decisions, rushed throws, and turnovers. The fact that he doesn't look any better this year in a completely new environment suggests the problem for Jennings was not simply the Lions coaching staff.
It seems to me like you get caught up in tunnel vision. You latch on to one issue and you block out everything else. You fail to recognize that Jennings himself just isn't good enough, while also being part of an inept offensive system.
Jennings, being a bad QB, wasn't going to succeed no matter what the offensive system was. But that doesn't mean that the system Jarious installed is going to be successful with a different QB as we've seen this year.
If you were correct, and Jennings was simply held back by a poor offensive system and bad coaching, then one would expect him to look a lot better this year in Ottawa. His QB efficiency this year is 48.3 (albeit in a small 2-game sample size).
Your response, the Pauser, is that I get caught up in 'tunnel vision'. I have always a person who is not only a self-critic but am also someone who listens to constructive criticism.
I WILL REFLECT ON YOUR PERSONAL COMMENT
So I will ponder your comment that I have tunnel vision but throughout my life, I have received the opposive view, so your comment is an usual one for me. I have always been considered a big picture guy and a long picture guy whose major weakness has often been not focusing enough on certain details.
That notion is even supported by the way that I post on Lionbackers. As you and many others are aware, on Lionbackers, I find it difficult to post without a big picture view of things and I often make spelling mistakes without correction.
So, as I consider your viewpoint that I have 'tunnel vision' I hope that you will consider a thought that I have about you. It deals with a concept called 'cognitive dissonance'.
Its kind of a fancy couple of words and I don't throw them out easily(like Wally threw out discombobulated, which was the only word I ever heard him use that was more than five letters long other than 'execution' or lack thereof
Its difficult to hold two different concepts in one's head about the same topic. That is what cognitive dissonance is.
You made an assumption (based upon your personal observation, as I assume that you have little evidence to support your argument) that Jennings had 'deer in the headlights syndrome' last year and made plenty of bad decisions. You also have a very strong opinion that Travis Lulay and Mike Reilly were good quarterbacks and Jonathan Jennings wasn't a good quarterback.
JUDGING USING THE SAME STANDARD
However statistically (the evidence) does not support that Jennings had 'deer in the headlights syndrome' last season and Travis Lulay and Mike Reilly did not or have not experienced 'deer in the headlights syndrome playing in Jarious offence.
Either all three have had 'deer in the headlights syndrome' or none have had it, while playing in Jarious scheme (or all three have had it a little bit).
The evidence, based upon passing completion rates, interception rates, touchdown to interception ratio, and quarterback efficiency prove that all three have performed and played very similarly in Jarious system.
Therefore, if Jennings was guilty of ‘rushed throws and bad decisions and turnovers’ then Lulay and Reilly have to be held to that same standard as well and their stats also either indicate ‘bad decisions and turnovers’ and all three have struggled due to Jarious scheme combined with inadequate offensive line play (which can also be partially blamed on scheme)
OBSERVATION CAN BE FAULTY
In terms of your 'observation', which is the evidence you provide to support your viewpoint, observation, not backed by evidence is often faulty. For example, many people have been executed based upon eye witness evidence that the eye witness said there were 100% certain, and which DNA evidence has overturned and the eye witness was proven to be dead wrong.
Sometimes we see things the way we choose to see them rather than the way they really are. Sometimes we just get things wrong at first.
SEARCHING TO FIND SUPPORT
You also attempt to provide support for your argument that Jennings, in a short body of work (2 games) in Ottawa, has played poorly. I don't see that as relevant. Travis Lulay could be in Ottawa this season and playing poorly. So could Mike Reilly be playing poorly in Ottawa if he was quarterbacking them this season. Dominque Davis has also struggled as Ottawa’s quarterback this season.
Jennings completed 15/18 (83.3%) passes for 125 yds, in his last game and threw a touchdown pass. He had 2 inteceptions early and then settled down. Certainly nothing to write home about but it was a much better performance than Mike Reilly had in a must win game at home against Regina last week.
Once again, in your comments, you hold two quarterbacks to two different standards, while trying to justify your reasoning.
Ottawa lost their offensive coordinator just before training camp. Their recievers coach is presently running their offence. They've lost a lot of talented offensive players from last year's roster.
I do think that Jonathan Jennings lost a lot of his confidence, over time, playing in B.C. So did Travis Lulay. If what is going on, keeps going on, in B.C. this season, Mike Reilly could end up being a shell of his former self too. He looked like a shell of his former self last game.
Its happened to many good quarterbacks here in B.C. as the hits mounted, the sack totals piled up, the injuries keep coming, and the pressure kept mounting.
When a person has an original notion and then evidence mounts that that their initial notion is wrong or perhaps not quite accurate, that person has an opportunity to adapt by modifying their initial thought. We call that learning or learning from experience.
However, not all people do that. Something called the ego gets in the way and runs the show. In that case, the person will stick with their initial notion, no matter how misguided it may be.
Wise people learn and adapt. But some people never aquire wisdom and stay 'stuck' because the ego gets in the way of the acquisition of wisdom. Thankfully the story of humans, overall, has been a history of incredible progress because we have been an adaptive, rather than a stuck creature. (But if Wally had been the leader of the tribe, he would have had us still hiding in caves and never inventing the wheel)
Perhaps the best example of that is Wally and short yardage on second down. Wally believed you should be able to sent in the jumbo team and always be able to successfully football up the gut, no matter what. Well, defenses stacked the gut, linebackers came over the top, and we often were stuffed on short yardage.
Wally would get as mad as a hive of hornets each time we were stuffed and yell at his lineman as they ran off the field. It was like a Monty Python circus but Wally retired still stuck in his thinking about second and short because his ego could not be wrong.
THE SHIELD AND THE SWORD
When I coached, I always had a sign above my door that said “Check your ego at the door’. It was there for everyone, including me. I thought it was important because the ego functions as both a shield (defending) and a sword (attacking) while getting in the way of truth or success or both.
Since you felt comfortable making a personal observation of me (that I have tunnel vision) I hope that you will also be open to consider that you might be avoiding cognitive dissonance by sticking to an original comment you have made and will not accept anything different because you would find it too painful.
With that said, however, I hope that personal comments can be avoided. I enjoy discussing football with you, whether agreeing or disagreeing in the past and I hope we can continue to be that way in the future.
But in the meantime, I will attempt to avoid the ‘tunnel’ as I hope you will consider that changing one’s mind, when evidence proves otherwise, is wise.
Hopefully, neither of us will become ‘discombobulated’ while doing so.
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)