A.J. Jenkins

[MHSL82]

Hey MHSL82, regarding the Kaepernick issue, I simply Googled the topic of discussion & copied/pasted the info - I knew there were plenty of links due to prior searches.

To your point, a simple copy/paste in Google or Bing would have taken you directly to the websites I extracted the information from. In the future I'll certainly try to remember to provide the link.

As for the stats, some of the stats came from ESPN; however, the charted stats are courtesy of a friend who does film analysis for Pro Football Focus and provides stats for other members of the media.

The database those stats come from is designed specifically for charting pass attempts, more specifically, each of the 49ers 519 pass attempts. Currently the database is 78 columns wide and growing depending upon demand - So, unfortunately copy pasting is not an option.

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt - I assure you it is not misplaced.

Pro Football Focus inside guy. It's not important now, but I meant to say copy and paste the links to your sources for stats, not copy and paste the stats. Copy and paste an excel sheet? LOL, I've actually tried that before. It's not fun on this format.

 

[Bemular]

Pro Football Focus inside guy. It's not important now, but I meant to say copy and paste the links to your sources for stats, not copy and paste the stats. Copy and paste an excel sheet? LOL, I've actually tried that before. It's not fun on this format.

LOL...Yeah, most of these types of forums don't do very well with columns although with some manipulation you can get your point across.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

First, your statements: "Open to Alex is not the same as open to Eli" & "Eli will throw into much narrower windows than Smith on a regular basis." require both film and statistical analysis. Here is what I'm talking about.

Of Smith's 445 passes, 59 or 13.3% were thrown into blanketed coverage, coverage as defined by the defender being from 0 to 1 yard from the receiver.

So, we can see right off the bat your claim that: "Eli will indisputably throw into much narrower windows than Smith" is not only disputable, it is 100% false. This is because you simply cannot get "narrower" than throwing to a receiver that has a defender draped on him.

In addition to the 59 passes thrown into blanketed coverage, 94 or 21.1% were thrown into tight coverage; coverage as defined by the defender being 1.1 to 2.5 yards from the receiver.

All totaled, 153 or 34.4% of Smiths 445 passes were thrown to receivers covered at a distance ranging from touching the receiver to 2.5 yards from the receiver.

I don't know how you are defining or quantifying "on a regular basis" but IMO, throwing passes to either blanketed or tightly covered receivers 1/3 of the time seems pretty regular to me.

Unless you have charted each of Manning’s 589 passes you have no way of knowing if Manning’s "regular basis" is higher or lower than Smiths "regular basis".

That said, however, if we apply some logic we can get an idea. If we think of well-covered completions as low YAC type completions then we can start to get a feel for this difference by looking at the YAC. For Smiths 71 completions into tight or blanketed coverage the median YAC was zero yards (average = 2.8)

If we apply this logic to their respective overall YAC as a percentage of total yards, the difference is a meaningless 2%. (Smith = 45%; Manning = 43%). From there we can look at completion %'s, YPC and factor in each QB's respective receivers and I think one could make a reasonable argument that the difference between the two is minimal if there is one at all.

Several thoughts here.

1) First, this is a pretty involved statistical analysis. Again, we see a contradiction from you. When the stats support a view you dispute, you dismiss them out of hand. And yet, when you think you can use them to your advantage, you are all too happy to trot them out. I find it particularly amusing that you are relying on a friend who works for PFF, given how often you and good buddy MW have ridiculed their stuff.

It's also entirely unclear where you're getting the 45% vs. 43% numbers. Is the number for Eli purely theoretical? It seems that way, given what you have said about it. If so, what value does it have?

2) Assuming these numbers are correct, unless you also have numbers for Eli (can't your buddy hook you up with those?), these numbers are meaningless. Hell, looking at any other QB would be helpful as it would provide some frame of reference. As it is, all we know is that Smith throws into coverage at times. I don't think anyone would dispute that. It would be virtually impossible not to given that he took almost every snap this year. I'm addressing the frequency with which he does so, specifically compared to Eli Manning. You haven't provided numbers that address that.

And frankly, throwing 1/3 of passes when a defender is within two-and-a-half yards doesn't seem very high at all for an NFL QB. A two-yard cushion in the NFL is pretty darn good.

3) While the number of attempts is relevant, of course, the fact that Smith only completed 46% of those balls seems telling. Again, without knowing what the numbers are for other QBs, it's hard to draw many conclusions from that number, but it seems low to me.

4) Regarding your low YAC theory, one broken tackle and 80-yard TD would completely skew the numbers. Unless you have them charted for Eli, your speculation has little merit.

 

[MHSL82]

Several thoughts here.

1) First, this is a pretty involved statistical analysis. Again, we see a contradiction from you. When the stats support a view you dispute, you dismiss them out of hand. And yet, when you think you can use them to your advantage, you are all too happy to trot them out. I find it particularly amusing that you are relying on a friend who works for PFF, given how often you and good buddy MW have ridiculed their stuff.

It's also entirely unclear where you're getting the 45% vs. 43% numbers. Is the number for Eli purely theoretical? It seems that way, given what you have said about it. If so, what value does it have?

2) Assuming these numbers are correct, unless you also have numbers for Eli (can't your buddy hook you up with those?), these numbers are meaningless. Hell, looking at any other QB would be helpful as it would provide some frame of reference. As it is, all we know is that Smith throws into coverage at times. I don't think anyone would dispute that. It would be virtually impossible not to given that he took almost every snap this year. I'm addressing the frequency with which he does so, specifically compared to Eli Manning. You haven't provided numbers that address that.

And frankly, throwing 1/3 of passes when a defender is within two-and-a-half yards doesn't seem very high at all for an NFL QB. A two-yard cushion in the NFL is pretty darn good.

3) While the number of attempts is relevant, of course, the fact that Smith only completed 46% of those balls seems telling. Again, without knowing what the numbers are for other QBs, it's hard to draw many conclusions from that number, but it seems low to me.

4) Regarding your low YAC theory, one broken tackle and 80-yard TD would completely skew the numbers. Unless you have them charted for Eli, your speculation has little merit.

Even then, you'd need more than one person to have a real frame of reference, because if Alex had a higher percentage of tight windows than Tom Brady did, it wouldn't mean anything without already having an opinion on Tom Brady. If Jamarcus Russel had a higher percentage of tight windows than Alex did, it wouldn't mean anything without already knowing Russel failed in the NFL overall. My point is that it's easy to use what we already believe to support stats that show an objective quality. It's even easier to let one stat overly influence on what we think makes a good QB. So we absolutely need several QBs to compare to and a correllation between tight windows passes with great QBs to have a full analysis. (If one QB throws within yard of the defender when he should have lead the receiver beyond 2 yards isn't necessarily better than the safer pass - but over time we have determined the greats - show how close their passes are to defenders, etc.). We all agree that every starting QB CAN make those passes but not always consistently or in certain situations.

 

[Bemular]

Yes!

 

[Bemular]

Wait, I meant, No!

 

[Bemular]

"open" to Alex Smith is not the same as "open"

"Whether it's perception of a guy being "open" or not, Eli will throw into much narrower windows than Smith...". "It may be a confidence thing, it may be a physical ability thing, it may be something I haven't even considered. Whatever the reason, it is indisputable, and I saw absolutely nothing in the playoffs to change my opinion on that."

The above were the parts of your posts I disagreed with and clearly you have retracted from these positions.

As to the frequency, there is a +/- on the rate, it can't be known without charting Manning's passes. If we turn our attention away from YAC's and toward INT's as a being the result of throwing into coverage then certainly those #'s would swing the rate in the opposite direction.

However, there is an obvious cost with that method and one which would, to a degree, contradict your "open" vs. "open' argument and would bring up a whole other cause/effect debate.

MHSL82, You're right if we could have all the QB's charted information that would be insanely great. Knowing that information would establish a bell & tails and it would be the basis of statistics that would rival anything on the internet today. The bottom line here is simply this. It once made sense to say Alex wouldn't throw into tight coverage - that simply isn't true anymore.

 

[Arete Tzu]

Wait, I meant, No!

 

[NinerSickness]

What the sense make???

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The above were the parts of your posts I disagreed with and clearly you have retracted from these positions.

As to the frequency, there is a +/- on the rate, it can't be known without charting Manning's passes. If we turn our attention away from YAC's and toward INT's as a being the result of throwing into coverage then certainly those #'s would swing the rate in the opposite direction.

However, there is an obvious cost with that method and one which would, to a degree, contradict your "open" vs. "open' argument and would bring up a whole other cause/effect debate.

MHSL82, You're right if we could have all the QB's charted information that would be insanely great. Knowing that information would establish a bell & tails and it would be the basis of statistics that would rival anything on the internet today. The bottom line here is simply this. It once made sense to say Alex wouldn't throw into tight coverage - that simply isn't true anymore.

Funny thing here. It's easy to disagree with part of my statement. You seem to have strategically left out a rather important portion, though. Here's what I really said:

Whether it's perception of a guy being "open" or not, Eli will throw into much narrower windows than Smith on a regular basis.

Those last three words - you know, the ones you edited out - provide a temporal element to my statement. As I explained quite clearly above, Smith obviously throws into tight coverage on occasion. In my experience, Eli does it more often and with greater success. Nothing you have said here has refuted my contention.

You mentioned earlier that some of my statements are nearly dishonest. Your omission above is blatantly dishonest. Thanks for playing though.

Oh, and just an FYI, you don't "retract from" things. You simply retract them.

 

[Bemular]

Funny thing here. It's easy to disagree with part of my statement. You seem to have strategically left out a rather important portion, though. Here's what I really said:

Whether it's perception of a guy being "open" or not, Eli will throw into much narrower windows than Smith on a regular basis.

Those last three words - you know, the ones you edited out - provide a temporal element to my statement. As I explained quite clearly above, Smith obviously throws into tight coverage on occasion. In my experience, Eli does it more often and with greater success. Nothing you have said here has refuted my contention.

You mentioned earlier that some of my statements are nearly dishonest. Your omission above is blatantly dishonest. Thanks for playing though.

Oh, and just an FYI, you don't "retract from" things. You simply retract them.

Nice try, they weren't edited out - they were addressed seperately - learn to read, chief.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Nice try, they weren't edited out - they were addressed seperately - learn to read, chief.

It would seem I'm not the one who needs to.

Though maybe you just don't understand the words.

 

[Bemular]

It would seem I'm not the one who needs to.

Though maybe you just don't understand the words.

Crimson, the term "Regular Basis" implys a measure of "frequency" which I addressed here:

"As to the frequency, there is a +/- on the rate, it can't be known without charting Manning's passes. If we turn our attention away from YAC's and toward INT's as a being the result of throwing into coverage then certainly those #'s would swing the rate in the opposite direction."

"However, there is an obvious cost with that method and one which would, to a degree, contradict your "open" vs. "open' argument and would bring up a whole other cause/effect debate."

 

[NinerSickness]

Ok X man...

What.....


.....The crap.....

...is that picture all about? That's weird and disturbing on so many levels.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson, the term "Regular Basis" implys a measure of "frequency" which I addressed here:

"As to the frequency, there is a +/- on the rate, it can't be known without charting Manning's passes. If we turn our attention away from YAC's and toward INT's as a being the result of throwing into coverage then certainly those #'s would swing the rate in the opposite direction."

"However, there is an obvious cost with that method and one which would, to a degree, contradict your "open" vs. "open' argument and would bring up a whole other cause/effect debate."

Just stop. You're getting increasingly pathetic, if possible.

You went out of your way to alter my statement. That tells me all I need to know.

 

[Bemular]

Just stop. You're getting increasingly pathetic, if possible.

You went out of your way to alter my statement. That tells me all I need to know.

Didn't go out of my way at all. They were two seperate points so I simply addressed them seperately. Just as I did in my previous post here:

"I don't know how you are defining or quantifying "on a regular basis" but IMO, throwing passes to either blanketed or tightly covered receivers 1/3 of the time seems pretty regular to me."

"Unless you have charted each of Manning’s 589 passes you have no way of knowing if Manning’s "regular basis" is higher or lower than Smiths "regular basis"."

 

[MHSL82]

Justop. Your getin increesinglee pathetik, if pausibal.

You went out of you're weigh to falter my statement. That tells me aul I nead 2 no.

Now, that's textbook Crimsoncrew. Pointing out when anyone misquotes you. Typical.

 

[Bemular]

Justop. Your getin increesinglee pathetik, if pausibal.

You went out of you're weigh to falter my statement. That tells me aul I nead 2 no.

Now, that's textbook Crimsoncrew. Pointing out when anyone misquotes you. Typical.

I just read - ALL of this post - That's pretty creative and funny MHSL82 - Plus One!

 

[Arete Tzu]

Ok X man...

What.....


.....The crap.....

...is that picture all about? That's weird and disturbing on so many levels.

2:00

 

[NinerSickness]

Wow. That was a REALLY vague reference. I love it. The vaguer the better. If people got even 20% of my references I'm not being vague enough.

I still have no idea what it means or why someone would do that.