Does Fantasy Football dictate how we judge players?

[RP-29]

You couldnt be more wrong.....feel free to look at the Game Logs from both of Eli's SB runs, and tell me thats a QB the team won "in spite" of him

Than look at Cams' postseason game logs

Think you may think twice about putting them in the same boat

Game logs don't show why or how a pass fell incomplete or was intercepted. They don't describe bad reads or show missed wide open receivers. I'd rather watch film, thank you.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Game logs don't show why or how a pass fell incomplete or was intercepted. They don't describe bad reads or show missed wide open receivers. I'd rather watch film, thank you.

Well, i didnt think me saying Ive watched every second of every game Eli has played, especially in those postseasons, would be good enough for you

Eli played very good in the 2007 run, and absolutely great in the 2011 run

Winning "In spite" of him in those particular instances is an in-accurate statement

But i still agree with you on Cam, he has been a dreadful postseason performer

 

[fredmccallyRTR]

I suspect people were looking at stats to judge players long before fantasy football became popular.

And stats certainly don't trump wins still: Just ask Peyton Manning who is questioned because he only has won 1 super bowl.

 

[Judge Fudge]

Hell no.

I look at there play on the field and there antics on and off the field before I judge them

 

[RP-29]

And on the last thing with the divisions? This obviously has a LOT to do with the teams in your division

Andrew Luck will spend an entire career "owning" the AFC South, and im not really speaking to the greatness of Andrew Luck

So if Eli is elite, why are the Giants NOT in complete control of their shoddy division?

Here's some of what I've noticed; copied from game recaps verbatim so I don't have to summarize...

Giants vs. Cowboys - Game Recap - September 13, 2015 - ESPN

The Giants tried to throw on third down from the Dallas 1 with a 23-20 lead, but the Cowboys didn't take the play-action fake. Eli Manning threw the ball away instead of taking a sack, stopping the clock and giving Romo the final 1:34 to try to win.

"It was bad clock management," Manning said. "It was definitely an option to take a sack and run 40 seconds off the clock and give them less time. That's 100 percent on me."

Falcons vs. Giants - Game Recap - September 20, 2015 - ESPN

Eli Manning misfired to two open receivers on the Giants' final drive in another ugly finish for New York.

Again, I don't think Eli is a bad quarterback, I've just seen enough of plays like these from him to prevent him from ever being considered close to an elite QB. We're always going to see just about as much bad as good from him and that's a big reason why his teams finish 8-8 +/- 2 wins every year.

 

[Money]

Sunday I watched Cam - with no defensive pressure - throw a ball 10 feet over a wide open receiver's outstretched arms jumping for the ball who was only about 10-15 yards down the field. Cam also inexcusably missed a wide open touchdown pass on a short out by three full yards.

Cam may get some fantasy points and the occasional winning streak, but he does not consistently throw an accurate ball or consistently make the right decision with the football. When an elite quarterback misses, it's by a couple inches, not a few yards. If the Panthers ever win a Superbowl with Cam, it will be every bit despite of Cam as because of Cam. Same with Eli.

If only Cam wasn't holding such elite talents as Ted Ginn Jr and Philly (Corey?) Brown back.

 

[RP-29]

If only Cam wasn't holding such elite talents as Ted Ginn Jr and Philly (Corey?) Brown back.

Cam put some throws right on the money Sunday too. I speak of his accuracy inconsistencies, which has little to do with who is on the other end of his passes. Not even Odell would've come close to hauling in some of Cam's passes Sunday.

 

[PatsFan2003]

really? No Shit

LOL

Of course. No surprise, right? But would he have the numbers he has now? Unlikely.

 

[SteelerKing]

A couple of things without having read every comment:

1) Stats are the numerical documentation and recording of a player's on field performance. If you're ignoring the stats because you think they're just numbers, then you're ignoring football. Box scores have been kept for every sport far prior to the advent of fantasy leagues as a means of recapping the game and giving fans a way of keeping track of how well players are performing. They're not just numbers. Whether it's football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, the guys who are consistently among the league leaders in multiple statistical categories are typically its best players.

2) "Eyeball tests" are unreliable, skewed by bias, and highly incomplete. A perfect example of this is when my Steelers got Tebowed by the Broncos in the 2011 playoffs. I watched the game with my father and stepmom, and my stepmom, who knows nothing about football, made the comment afterwards that "This Tim Tebow is a really good quarterback!". The eyes lie. If you only ever see a player have a great game, you think he's great even if he sucks. Likewise, if you only ever see a great player have a bad game, or even multiple bad games, you have a distorted perception of him not being all that great. Don't trust your eyes; trust the stats. They're objective, unbiased, and document all games for a career.

3) Fantasy football/fantasy sports in general don't focus on the complete statistical picture. If you're evaluating players based on their fantasy rankings, then you're not really paying attention to the stats either.

4) Wins and losses/Playoff & Super Bowl wins and losses. Both are a team effort, not a quarterback stat. A quarterback with a bunch of wins but average stats is still an average quarterback and not better than a quarterback with terrific numbers but a bunch of losses. Joe Flacco isn't a better quarterback than Drew Brees. Likewise, Super Bowl wins don't make one quarterback better than another. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson aren't better quarterbacks than Dan Marino.

5) Eli Manning is an average quarterback. Don't be fooled by the two Super Bowl wins to his name - his career numbers (the full ones, not just yards and touchdowns, which are an incomplete look at what he's done for his career) are below the average of all active quarterbacks, he's lead the league in interceptions 3 times, has an atrocious career completion percentage, and has been a laughingstock at times. A Ben/Eli comparison is a terrible one. They're not even close to the same caliber of player. As for his career passing yards: Vinny Testaverde has more career passing yards than Joe Montana. Passing yards are a product of total attempts and total games played. They have very little to do with how good a quarterback actually is when not viewed in the context of the rest of his numbers.

This is gospel. Trust the stats. They're complete (if you know how to look at all of the data and not just cherry pick it), they're 100% accurate, they're objective, and they don't lie contrary to that misnomer. Players with good stats are good players, players with bad stats are bad players, and the players who consistently lead the league statistically are its best players whether the sport is basketball, football, baseball, or hockey. This is a universal maxim that applies to all sports.

 

[Money]

Cam put some throws right on the money Sunday too. I speak of his accuracy inconsistencies, which has little to do with who is on the other end of his passes. Not even Odell would've come close to hauling in some of Cam's passes Sunday.

Do you remember how ridiculously horrible Favre looked at times??? His mechanics were horrible. He actually threw off his back foot all the time. Remind you of anyone?

Cam can look horrible and can then look brilliant. Bottom line is he carries that offense. There is no doubt about it.

 

[Golden Spur]

I think more people (like me) pay (a lot) more attention to a wider range of game because of FF. That's been good news for the bottom line of The League and The Networks.

And again, all this Panther hate is great. Means we're getting somewhere for a change.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Bens' completion % - 63%

Eli - 59%

 

[Dude]

It's a good indicator of individual player performance, but no they should not be judged solely by FF wow factor. Many other variables need to be considered in order to accurately judge a player.

 

[Golden Spur]

It's a good indicator of individual player performance, but no they should not be judged solely by FF wow factor. Many other variables need to be considered in order to accurately judge a player.

There's the simple fact that a guy can rack up big numbers week-over-week, and still be on a losing team. I think Rivers is a pretty good example this year.

 

[SteelerKing]

Bens' completion % - 63%

Eli - 59%

Which isn't even remotely comparable. That was something I forgot to add into my novel up above: you have to know how to interpret the data as well. It's also 63.8% for Ben vs 59.4% for Eli. You may see a difference of only 4.4% and assume that's a relatively small difference, but to put it into perspective, it's greater than the difference between Tom Brady and Matthew Stafford this season. Sam Bradford has a more comparable completion percentage (62.9%) to Aaron Rodgers (64.7%) than Eli does to Ben. It's no different than looking at a baseball batting average and thinking that a career .300 hitter is comparable to a career .250 hitter because there's only a 0.05 difference.

You have to know how to interpret the data otherwise "stats are meaningless" as non-stats fans like to say.

 

[Money]

You have to know how to interpret the data otherwise "stats are meaningless" as non-stats fans like to say.

Stats certainly aren't meaningless. They are definitely part of the story.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Which isn't even remotely comparable. That was something I forgot to add into my novel up above: you have to know how to interpret the data as well. It's also 63.8% for Ben vs 59.4% for Eli. You may see a difference of only 4.4% and assume that's a relatively small difference, but to put it into perspective, it's greater than the difference between Tom Brady and Matthew Stafford this season. Sam Bradford has a more comparable completion percentage (62.9%) to Aaron Rodgers (64.7%) than Eli does to Ben. It's no different than looking at a baseball batting average and thinking that a career .300 hitter is comparable to a career .250 hitter because there's only a 0.05 difference.

You have to know how to interpret the data otherwise "stats are meaningless" as non-stats fans like to say.

It certainly makes me question the importance of the statistic itself when judging the "difference" between players.....

There may not be a wider margin in the NFL this season, between 2 players, than Aaron Rodgers and Sam Bradford, but judging by completion %, he is only marginally better.....

So as i see it, Stats, as usual, are only telling part of the story

 

[Money]

It certainly makes me question the importance of the statistic itself when judging the "difference" between players.....

There may not be a wider margin in the NFL this season, between 2 players, than Aaron Rodgers and Sam Bradford, but judging by completion %, he is only marginally better.....

So as i see it, Stats, as usual, are only telling part of the story

The only way you can accurately compare 2 QBs by stats would be if those 2 QBs are the only variables. Of course the problem is everything else is a variable as well and there are no constants.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

The only way you can accurately compare 2 QBs by stats would be if those 2 QBs are the only variables. Of course the problem is everything else is a variable as well and there are no constants.

Exactly

 

[Dude]

There's the simple fact that a guy can rack up big numbers week-over-week, and still be on a losing team. I think Rivers is a pretty good example this year.

This is very true, indeed.