NFL QB: Closest to Perfection

[JDM]

I don't mind looking deeper into "stats". Not all interceptions are equal. Not all completions are equally difficult to make. A QB with a 65% completion % while dinking and dunking all over the field is not necessarily a more "accurate" passer than a QB with a 60% completion % who takes shots down the field more often. This is the kind of subjectivity stats can have.

That's not subjectivity. That's trying to take things from the stats that they don't tell you.

 

[buried_in_snow]

I don't mind looking deeper into "stats". Not all interceptions are equal. Not all completions are equally difficult to make. A QB with a 65% completion % while dinking and dunking all over the field is not necessarily a more "accurate" passer than a QB with a 60% completion % who takes shots down the field more often. This is the kind of subjectivity stats can have.

Don't steal my thunder, bish :mmph:

 

[buried_in_snow]

That's not subjectivity. That's trying to take things from the stats that they don't tell you.

You can it express statistically via "splits"

eg

RGKnee: 70% of all his passes were either thrown behind the line of scrimmage or less than 10 yards
Luck: 38% of all his passes were either thrown behind the line of scrimmage or less than 10 yards

 

[JDM]

Whether it's done by an algorithm or by hand, makes no difference to me.

Stats existed way before computers and I trust them the same as current ones.

The point isn't who does the labor. It is whether it is based on a set formula and applied universally, or there is opinion added. If every third and 5, against the same defense, with 5 minute left in the game, from the 35 yard line, that results in a 6 yard pass for the first down is rated the same, it is objective. If there is any possibility for the analyst to decide one throw was prettier than the other and give that guy more points, it is not.

Even if done by hand, there has to be a set algorithm followed for it to be objective.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

Says the one who claims he knows everything about Montana from watching ESPN Classic

The only thing I know about Montana is that he's not the greatest QB of all time.

 

[buried_in_snow]

The only thing I know about Montana is that he's not the greatest QB of all time.

Don't make me embarrass you like I did in your "eye test" thread.

 

[JDM]

You can it express statistically via "splits"

eg

RGKnee: 70% of all his passes were either thrown behind the line of scrimmage or less than 10 yards
Luck: 38% of all his passes were either thrown behind the line of scrimmage or less than 10 yards

But he was trying to read into completion percentage to get more than it tells you. That was my point. There are more advanced statistics that do a decent job of telling you various things. My issue is with lumping QBR in with them when it is not the same.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

You can it express statistically via "splits"

eg

RGKnee: 70% of all his passes were either thrown behind the line of scrimmage or less than 10 yards
Luck: 38% of all his passes were either thrown behind the line of scrimmage or less than 10 yards

It doesn't matter. Luck completed 55% of his passes and RG3 completed 65%, therefore, Griffin is the more accurate passer. This is the exact kind of ignorance I hate about message board dorks.

 

[buried_in_snow]

The point isn't who does the labor. It is whether it is based on a set formula and applied universally, or there is opinion added. If every third and 5, against the same defense, with 5 minute left in the game, from the 35 yard line, that results in a 6 yard pass for the first down is rated the same, it is objective. If there is any possibility for the analyst to decide one throw was prettier than the other and give that guy more points, it is not.

Even if done by hand, there has to be a set algorithm followed for it to be objective.

IIRC, DVOA takes into consideration magnitude of the games, etc.... so there is a human element to it.

I think

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

Don't make me embarrass you like I did in your "eye test" thread.

going into srsBISness mode?

 

[buried_in_snow]

going into srsBISness mode?

Is that what you termed, "trucking you unchecked?"

 

[JDM]

Alright, here's more fuel for the fire

Who had the better season statistically? RGKnee or Luck?

I haven't done an in-depth enough analysis to decide that. I can tell you that as long as I have someone but Mike Shanahan as my coach I'll take Griffin long term, though. He's going to be a hell of a player if they let him run a real offense.

 

[buried_in_snow]

I haven't done an in-depth enough analysis to decide that. I can tell you that as long as I have someone but Mike Shanahan as my coach I'll take Griffin long term, though. He's going to be a hell of a player if they let him run a real offense.

I think if Luck has the #2 RB in the NFL behind him and at least one weapon on the outside, he puts up gawdy numbers.

And doesn't get the shit severely knocked out of him every other week.

 

[JDM]

IIRC, DVOA takes into consideration magnitude of the games, etc.... so there is a human element to it.

I think

Magnitude of games could be objective as well, theoretically. You could measure what statistical chance the outcome of that game has of affecting a playoff berth or seed (based only on previous games. You can't go back and decide week one was the most important game when it wasn't known when the game was played).

 

[buried_in_snow]

Magnitude of games could be objective as well, theoretically. You could measure what statistical chance the outcome of that game has of affecting a playoff berth or seed (based only on previous games. You can't go back and decide week one was the most important game when it wasn't known when the game was played).

I get the fact that "win and in" games in week 17 are of a higher magnitude than week 1 games.

But had you won in week 1, week 17 could have essentially been a bye week.

It's why I love heated NFL debate... stats can always be manipulated to serve your argument

 

[JDM]

I think if Luck has the #2 RB in the NFL behind him and at least one weapon on the outside, he puts up gawdy numbers.

And doesn't get the shit severely knocked out of him every other week.

If griffin ran a 7.0 I would still take him first, because I feel he is a better passer. He needs taught to slide and a coach who isn't an idiot and calling consistent designed runs for him. He gets more yards on the ground as a scrambler who breaks the pocket when he needs to, or teams put an extra spy on him and he makes them pay with his arm when people get open.

All of this part is separating from stats, for the record, but an interesting discussion nonetheless.

 

[JDM]

I get the fact that "win and in" games in week 17 are of a higher magnitude than week 1 games.

But had you won in week 1, week 17 could have essentially been a bye week.

It's why I love heated NFL debate... stats can always be manipulated to serve your argument

Of course, but the magnitude of game part is intended to determine how they perform under pressure, and it's not there week one.

 

[buried_in_snow]

If griffin ran a 7.0 I would still take him first, because I feel he is a better passer. He needs taught to slide and a coach who isn't an idiot and calling consistent designed runs for him. He gets more yards on the ground as a scrambler who breaks the pocket when he needs to, or teams put an extra spy on him and he makes them pay with his arm when people get open.

All of this part is separating from stats, for the record, but an interesting discussion nonetheless.

If he ran a 7.0 40, then he wouldn't be getting many yards scrambling. But I get what you're saying.

I still don't think he's a better passer than Luck, which is what I was eluding to with the splits I posted above. Which brings us back to the stats debate: comp%, passing yards, YPA, etc can be substantiated with other stats/splits that puts things into perspective.

 

[JDM]

If he ran a 7.0 40, then he wouldn't be getting many yards scrambling. But I get what you're saying.

I still don't think he's a better passer than Luck, which is what I was eluding to with the splits I posted above. Which brings us back to the stats debate: comp%, passing yards, YPA, etc can be substantiated with other stats/splits that puts things into perspective.

Of course not. The first sentence was supposed to speak for itself; the rest was based on his actual skill set.

Even the splits are hard to use exclusively, because luck was forced to throw the ball more, and it's hard to penalize him for that. But even if the two are very close as passers, and I don't think there's a lot of evidence that luck is far and away a better thrower (or decision maker, both are very good at that IMO), when you add in his legs and elusiveness it's hard to not go with griffin. I think the two will be the Brady/Manning of their eras, and what baffles me is people arguing Russell Wilson is comparable to either when I just don't see near the same skill set.

 

[buried_in_snow]

Of course not. The first sentence was supposed to speak for itself; the rest was based on his actual skill set.

Even the splits are hard to use exclusively, because luck was forced to throw the ball more, and it's hard to penalize him for that. But even if the two are very close as passers, and I don't think there's a lot of evidence that luck is far and away a better thrower (or decision maker, both are very good at that IMO), when you add in his legs and elusiveness it's hard to not go with griffin. I think the two will be the Brady/Manning of their eras, and what baffles me is people arguing Russell Wilson is comparable to either when I just don't see near the same skill set.

Luck's "legs" are vastly underrated.

He ran a 4.59 and is a smart scrambler.

But he's running a pro style offense that requires him to be (pretty much) a pure pocket passer..... behind a super shitty OL, with no run threat behind him and awful WRs