One last, final last... Rex Grossman post

Need any more be said on the subject of Rex Grossman for the next six months? Absolutely not. Am I gonna say it anyway? You betcha.

I wouldn’t even write this were it not for a post I saw last night on the blog Rumors and Rants that more or less summarizes the opinions of the anti-Grossman contingent. So you can thank/curse them and their readers for providing the inspiration.

I won't rehash the entire high-risk, high-reward argument I made back in November, but again, I think that theme persists in the post-Super Bowl Rex-bashing as much as any other.

I understand what a lot of people argued all season: The Bears had a good enough defense and running game that any substantial reward from the passing game was unnecessary and, as a result, the Bears ought not have incurred any risk by way of their passing game. Fine. That's your argument? Leave it at that and be done with it. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I could be convinced.

I do, however, have a huge problem with people who extended this logic--as many have--into assertions that Rex is incapable of ever winning a Super Bowl or that he's one of the worst QBs in the league. Those are not well-formed evaluations. They're bullshit knee-jerk reactions to obvious blunder plays.

First of all--and yes, this argument is relevant--let's keep in mind how many other QBs have been not just mediocre, but downright terrible at the age of 25. I know people will wanna say, "But yeah, look how much more Rex had to work with!" Did he really, though? Granted, the team went 15-4. But how many times did we see Rex Grossman retreat into a seven-step drop with almost no protection this year? And did we ever see one of his receivers win a deep ball from a defensive back when the placement wasn't spot-on perfect?

Again, I think the whole anti-Rex mindset stems from impatience and an intolerance of failure in the interest of long-term reward. Is it better QB rating you want? That's fine. I will GLADLY trade Mark Brunell from my hypothetical NFL roster to yours in exchange for Rex Grossman. Gleefully, in fact. Come on; 86.5 rating! Way higher than Grossman's!

Grossman's rating was, in fact, below average. No one can deny that. Of course, NFL statnicks rather roundly agree that QB rating overrates completion percentage, which, in itself, is a pretty overrated stat--yards-per-attempt being far more telling of a QB's performance.

Having said that, I don't think QB rating is a meaningless indicator. While its meaning within that 70-87 gray area is up for tons of debate, performances that push its extremes are very telling of a QB's performance. And yes, Grossman had those few awful, awful games. But as Rumors and Rants reader Patrick (not our own Patrick, for the record) astutely points out, he also led the league with seven 100+ QB rating performances. ...Seven!

Say what you will about those BadRex games as they relate to this past season. But if you're trying to evaluate Rex's abilities and ultimate potential as a QB, I'd advise you to look more at those seven excellent games. (I think most of us will agree that a 100+ QB rating is definitively excellent by standards of most, if not all, football fans and players.)

Seven excellent games out of sixteen are probably not a fluke. Nor are the many times this year when we saw Rex throw passes that we normally associate with all-pro QBs. There were simply too many of these throws to brand Rex a hopeless cause. Will the wider trend of inconsistency always predominate the more isolated trends of excellence throughout Grossman's career? This is possible. But how can anyone possibly assume this?? Remember--Twenty. Five.

Now here's where I go on a bit of a tanget, but I promise it's relevant. So bear with me. As our regulars know, most of my generalized sports-related opinions stem from my knowledge of baseball, as I'm admittedly a baseball guy far above all. And really, this post isn't so much about Rex Grossman or football as it is about short-sightedness and rash evaluation of talent.

So let's take a baseball example--Roy Halladay. Just like Grossman, Halladay was highly-touted entering the pros. In his second start ever, the dude took a no-hitter into the ninth. But his rookie year was eratic--only three more strikeouts than walks and a 1.57 WHIP. His second year was worse. Much worse. 10.64 ERA worse. But he had talent, and everyone knew it. It came in flashes only, but it was palpable according to those who followed the Blue Jays that year. Six years later, Roy Halladay is very, very awesome. By contrast, we so often see a pitcher post consistently good numbers in his first 15 to 20 starts in the bigs despite any notable raw talent. We wait with skepticism to see whether the trend can last, and three years later, it's "Hey, what ever happened to Jason Simontacchi?"

Yes, this is just one example. There are plenty of Rick Mirers and Corey Pattersons to disprove me. On the whole, however, I tend to be more encouraged by guys who play like Grossman or Halladay or Wily Mo Pena early in their careers than by guys who play like Tony Romo or Scott Podsednik. Real talent exhibited does not lie, and Rex Grossman has exhibited real talent. The tidal pattern may be hard to stomach right now, but giving up on it so soon would be insane. Ask Packers fans or '70s Steelers fans how they feel about being patient with a high-risk QB.

To be honest, I'm fairly annoyed and also surprised how much the reputedly more learned blogging fanbase has approached this topic like talk radio callers. Grossman's stats are practically the definition of inconclusive, and the wild assumptions about his future development are nonsense speculation. We've already seen the raw talent. And the psychological ticks that work against a young player tend to steady with time, as the positive ones are reinforced by experience. Why so many people are convinced that the opposite will prove true for Grossman makes no sense to me.

We know the press and the talk radio callers will persist with the polar extremes on this topic because, well, "Rex Grossman continues to play inconclusively" doesn't make for as good a headline as "Train Rex." But hopefully, the rest of us can drop this topic for a while and let time give us better results before we draw any sweeping conclusions about Rex Grossman's abilities as a quarterback.

Of course, I'll be ready when that time comes with some fresh know-it-allism, as clearly, I'm obsessed with this debate.