Difference in QB eras

[RaZon]

A sack is a sack. I'm quite certain both were sacked plenty. But you lost this argument right off the bat when you tried to make a big point about Trubisky's weight being a factor. That was a big red flag indicating that you don't have any idea about what considerations are important in a QB.

"Johnny is a hell of a QB, but I think we'll pass because he doesn't weigh quite enough" ... said nobody ever. Stick with track.

The

A sack is a sack. I'm quite certain both were sacked plenty. But you lost this argument right off the bat when you tried to make a big point about Trubisky's weight being a factor. That was a big red flag indicating that you don't have any idea about what considerations are important in a QB.

"Johnny is a hell of a QB, but I think we'll pass because he doesn't weigh quite enough" ... said nobody ever. Stick with track.

Wow!

Dude....


For example, quarterback rating is equal to 0.373 * (last year’s rating) + 0.153 * (rating two years ago) - 0.684 * (height) + 91.246. That means the difference between a 73-inch and 77-inch quarterback’s passer rating is equal to (77 - 73) * (-0.684), or 2.74 points of quarterback rating, favoring the smaller passer (the coefficient for height is negative).

Weight affects passer rating by 1.15 points, favoring heavier QBs. Smaller QBs have an 8.82-fantasy-point edge over taller QBs over the course of 450 pass attempts, though weight had a much lower affect on fantasy points (2.21 points, favoring heavier QBs).

Completion percentage wasn’t changed by height or weight much at all. Passing yards, touchdowns, and interceptions favored smaller quarterbacks, yet touchdowns and interceptions also favored heavier QBs.

Almost every stat favors both small (height-wise) and heavy quarterbacks. I then ran the same test using body mass index, or BMI, which is an easy-to-use statistic that identifies a player as underweight, normal, or obese. What we want to see is an edge toward obese players, guys who are heavy yet small in stature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ya really do need to get out more, rookies...sheesh!!!!

 

[PDay8810]

So Jim Brown who was 6-2 230 will now be 6-4 250? Gale Sayers a 200 pounder will be just as fast and elusive at 220? Bullet Bob Hayes was a 195pounder, he will be faster at 210?

Come on man!

No dipshit....My comment was based on your post about olines.
You know the one about the 70 steelers and 80 niners & cowboys.

BUT....Jim Brown might be 245 with todays training, Sayers could very well be 210, 220
Back in the old days these players took off season jobs, it wasn't 12 months of training, good diets & supplements.

Buy a fucking clue

 

[RaZon]

No dipshit....My comment was based on your post about olines.
You know the one about the 70 steelers and 80 niners & cowboys.

BUT....Jim Brown might be 245 with todays training, Sayers could very well be 210, 220
Back in the old days these players took off season jobs, it wasn't 12 months of training, good diets & supplements.

Buy a fucking clue

A sack is a sack. I'm quite certain both were sacked plenty. But you lost this argument right off the bat when you tried to make a big point about Trubisky's weight being a factor. That was a big red flag indicating that you don't have any idea about what considerations are important in a QB.

"Johnny is a hell of a QB, but I think we'll pass because he doesn't weigh quite enough" ... said nobody ever. Stick with track.

Actually you said this.....


great players would be that in todays game. They would be bigger & stronger with today's diets, supplements and training

Where do you mention o lines?

And, look at WR's in the Hall of Fame who played in the days of Bob Hayes, how many in the HOF?

Dipshit???? What are you 12?

 

[RaZon]

A sack is a sack. I'm quite certain both were sacked plenty. But you lost this argument right off the bat when you tried to make a big point about Trubisky's weight being a factor. That was a big red flag indicating that you don't have any idea about what considerations are important in a QB.

"Johnny is a hell of a QB, but I think we'll pass because he doesn't weigh quite enough" ... said nobody ever. Stick with track.

Speaking of Johnny's weight....


Johnny Manziel is shockingly skinny, staying in $25K per night hotel room

Hahahaha!!!

 

[RaZon]

Speaking of QB's....

Goes like this...

1.Accurate passer
2.Good decision maker/a leader.....go together
3.Durability
4.Mobility

In my opinion Russell Wilson the best example of an NFL QB

 

[PDay8810]

Actually you said this.....


great players would be that in todays game. They would be bigger & stronger with today's diets, supplements and training

Where do you mention o lines?

And, look at WR's in the Hall of Fame who played in the days of Bob Hayes, how many in the HOF?

Dipshit???? What are you 12?

it was you who mentions Olines. Both O & D lines would be bigger and stronger. As would many RB's, QB's, TE's, WR'ers, LB'ers, and Dbacks. Considering today's training, diets and supplements, it crazy you want to argue the point. Many players would also be faster but not taller as YOU asked about with the Jim Brown statement.

Receivers in the hall when Hayse played. You mean back when 20 passes a game was a large amount?
I got Alworth, Warfield, Biletnikoff, Charley Taylor, Don Maynard and Charlie Joiner.
This lifetime Cowboy fan has no problem telling you each were better wide receivers. Each had better hands and were better route runners. Like I said, Hayse was overdue for the hall because of his speed and being the somewhat founder of the zone defense, but most all long time football fans would have trouble putting Hayse ahead of any of these guys.

NOPE....older than 12 but dipshit seems to fit you with all the arguments you've had here in just 4 months.

 

[RaZon]

it was you who mentions Olines. Both O & D lines would be bigger and stronger. As would many RB's, QB's, TE's, WR'ers, LB'ers, and Dbacks. Considering today's training, diets and supplements, it crazy you want to argue the point. Many players would also be faster but not taller as YOU asked about with the Jim Brown statement.

Receivers in the hall when Hayse played. You mean back when 20 passes a game was a large amount?
I got Alworth, Warfield, Biletnikoff, Charley Taylor, Don Maynard and Charlie Joiner.
This lifetime Cowboy fan has no problem telling you each were better wide receivers. Each had better hands and were better route runners. Like I said, Hayse was overdue for the hall because of his speed and being the somewhat founder of the zone defense, but most all long time football fans would have trouble putting Hayse ahead of any of these guys.

NOPE....older than 12 but dipshit seems to fit you with all the arguments you've had here in just 4 months.

Everybody is bigger and stronger today, that is news? My son is bigger than me, that is simply how it goes.

Did you miss.........who compares to Hayes first four seasons? Do some homework, then you'll see what I mean.

Bob Hayes was a speed receiver like Stallworth, Warren Wells, Stanley Morgan. Biletnikoff was a possession receiver. Hayes wasn't about route running he was about picking up chunk yards, the big play. Alworth was amazing but do think Maynard got by because AFL defenders sucked.

So you remember Don Perkins, dude was a stud, cat had a serious Afro.

 

[PDay8810]

Everybody is bigger and stronger today, that is news? My son is bigger than me, that is simply how it goes.

Did you miss.........who compares to Hayes first four seasons? Do some homework, then you'll see what I mean.

Bob Hayes was a speed receiver like Stallworth, Warren Wells, Stanley Morgan. Biletnikoff was a possession receiver. Hayes wasn't about route running he was about picking up chunk yards, the big play. Alworth was amazing but do think Maynard got by because AFL defenders sucked.

So you remember Don Perkins, dude was a stud, cat had a serious Afro.

Buddy....you're trying way to hard thinking you impress people with all these old school posts.

Hayse was great his first four years. AGAIN....so fast, teams changed defensive coverage and the zone was borne. Bob also dropped a shit load of sure TD's in those early years. I'm fully aware who was what on the list of HOF'ers in the late 60's. Each was a better receiver than Hayse over the long haul. Lets agree to disagree and move on.

Sure I remember Don Perkins. I also remember other Dallas RB's like Amos Marsh. Walt Garrison, Dan Reeves, Craig Baynham, Doug Dennison, Calvin Hill, Duane Thomas, Robert Newhouse, Scott Laidlaw, Timmy Newsom, Ron Springs, Darryl Clack, Preston Pearson....some guy named Herschel Walker, Tony Dorsett and Emmitt Smith. Truth be told, most long ass time fans of a team can remember past players

Dallas had some great RB's in their time...Hell, Staubach still ranks 13th all time Dallas rushing yards, which is more than Marsh, Springs, Reeves, Duane Thomas, Preston Pearson, Newsome, Dennison, & Laidlaw

 

[RaZon]

Buddy....you're trying way to hard thinking you impress people with all these old school posts.

Hayse was great his first four years. AGAIN....so fast, teams changed defensive coverage and the zone was borne. Bob also dropped a shit load of sure TD's in those early years. I'm fully aware who was what on the list of HOF'ers in the late 60's. Each was a better receiver than Hayse over the long haul. Lets agree to disagree and move on.

Sure I remember Don Perkins. I also remember other Dallas RB's like Amos Marsh. Walt Garrison, Dan Reeves, Craig Baynham, Doug Dennison, Calvin Hill, Duane Thomas, Robert Newhouse, Scott Laidlaw, Timmy Newsom, Ron Springs, Darryl Clack, Preston Pearson....some guy named Herschel Walker, Tony Dorsett and Emmitt Smith. Truth be told, most long ass time fans of a team can remember past players

Dallas had some great RB's in their time...Hell, Staubach still ranks 13th all time Dallas rushing yards, which is more than Marsh, Springs, Reeves, Duane Thomas, Preston Pearson, Newsome, Dennison, & Laidlaw

Did you not bring up being a long time Cowboy fan? So I am just talking about what long time Cowboys fans know. Working off you.

I made it very clear all I was talking about was those first 4 Hayes seasons, he was fantastic that is why he played in 4 pro bowls. 4000 yards 45tds!!!!!! What more do ya want? Dude has a career avg over 20 yards a reception.

So ya run off all the Cowboy RB's (almost) but I need to cool the old school......ha!!!!!!!

How many Cowboys WR's are in the Hall of Fame? See what I mean?

 

[PDay8810]

I wave the white flag.
enjoy yourself

 

[RaZon]

I wave the white flag.
enjoy yourself

The Dallas Cowboys have had TONS of WR's, but only three......Michael Irvin, Drew Pearson and Bob Hayes in the Hal of Fame.

Criticize Tony Hill, ha!!!!

Adios~~~~

 

[VikingFan2k2]

Speaking of Johnny's weight....


Johnny Manziel is shockingly skinny, staying in $25K per night hotel room

Hahahaha!!!

When did that happen?

 

[Tapey]

When did that happen?

Looks like 2016

 

[Wazmankg]

great players would be that in todays game. They would be bigger & stronger with today's diets, supplements and training

Exactly. Diet, supplements & weight training. .They pack on weight and muscle these days unlike back then

The

Wow!

Dude....


For example, quarterback rating is equal to 0.373 * (last year’s rating) + 0.153 * (rating two years ago) - 0.684 * (height) + 91.246. That means the difference between a 73-inch and 77-inch quarterback’s passer rating is equal to (77 - 73) * (-0.684), or 2.74 points of quarterback rating, favoring the smaller passer (the coefficient for height is negative).

Weight affects passer rating by 1.15 points, favoring heavier QBs. Smaller QBs have an 8.82-fantasy-point edge over taller QBs over the course of 450 pass attempts, though weight had a much lower affect on fantasy points (2.21 points, favoring heavier QBs).

Completion percentage wasn’t changed by height or weight much at all. Passing yards, touchdowns, and interceptions favored smaller quarterbacks, yet touchdowns and interceptions also favored heavier QBs.

Almost every stat favors both small (height-wise) and heavy quarterbacks. I then ran the same test using body mass index, or BMI, which is an easy-to-use statistic that identifies a player as underweight, normal, or obese. What we want to see is an edge toward obese players, guys who are heavy yet small in stature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ya really do need to get out more, rookies...sheesh!!!!

Wow is right. What the hell was all of this supposed to be? You think you can feed a QBs weight into a formula and come up with something meaningful? lol

 

[Wazmankg]

Actually you said this.....


great players would be that in todays game. They would be bigger & stronger with today's diets, supplements and training

Where do you mention o lines?

And, look at WR's in the Hall of Fame who played in the days of Bob Hayes, how many in the HOF?

Dipshit???? What are you 12?

You're just babbling now.

Why do you keep going on about all of these other positions when that's not what we're talking about?

 

[Pure Steel]

Ryan Leaf 6’5” 245......would suck in any era....

 

[Manster7588]

Do you really think a 182 pound QB could play today? That was Baugh. Now how would a 220 pounder vs 240 pounder D linemen do?

Otto, 195.

Do this take a few minute and Google both Baugh and Otto career stats, now check out Trubisky, it's staring right at ya. And what Trupisky faces vs what those old timers way back when is like HS vs NFL, DRAMATICALLY different.

YES....ya always go with dominance of area. That is why Baugh and Otto are legends.

 

[Manster7588]

Do you really think a 182 pound QB could play today? That was Baugh. Now how would a 220 pounder vs 240 pounder D linemen do?

Otto, 195.

Do this take a few minute and Google both Baugh and Otto career stats, now check out Trubisky, it's staring right at ya. And what Trupisky faces vs what those old timers way back when is like HS vs NFL, DRAMATICALLY different.

YES....ya always go with dominance of area. That is why Baugh and Otto are legends.

What you seem to be ignoring is if those 182lb QB's played today they'd be privy to todays nutrition and training, allowing them to be in that 220 range.

 

[RaZon]

You're just babbling now.

Why do you keep going on about all of these other positions when that's not what we're talking about?

It all ties together, you don't see that?

Otto never faced anything close to what he;d be facing today, while guys today would be facing slower smaller athletes.

 

[RaZon]

What you seem to be ignoring is if those 182lb QB's played today they'd be privy to todays nutrition and training, allowing them to be in that 220 range.

So you are saying as they actually were it ain't working?