Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

For all the complaining and hand wringing we and the mediots do about Brunell and the unabashed praise that's heaped on Drew Bledsoe let's take a look at the numbers for a minute..

Bedsoe:
3639 yds
60.1 completion percentage
23 TD, 17 INT
[b]49 sacks[/b]

Brunell:
3050 yds
57.7 completion percentage
23 TD, [b]10 INT [/b]
27 sacks

With the added weapons we have I have few concerns about Brunell replicating these numbers (which were good enough for 10 wins). The addition of TO is big for Dallas but with their offensive line still being subpar I don't know why they are all of the sudden [b]so[/b] much better..

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

T.O. makes any team better instantly because he is a top 3 receiver in this league(just on talent only)their offensive line is going to take a step backwards meaning that bledsoe will probably not finish the year without getting injured

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Good points. And I prefer Brunell over Bledsoe because at least Brunell can scramble a little, whereas Bledsoe is pretty much a statue. That, and Dallas' offensive line woes, explain the difference in sacks.

But, when given protection Bledsoe is the better passer. He's got a cannon for an arm, while Brunell does have a tendency to float some throws.

I guess everyone has forgotten our playoff run last year, and the fact that we beat them twice. No matter, we'll just have to show them again this fall.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Paintrain, those Sacks and INTs that you have highlighted really tell the story of how these 2 QB's are managing the game. That is 26 more times that Bledsoe lost yardage for his team and 7 more times he gave it to the other team. I thought Brunell probably had his most efficent season ever last year, even though he did not put up mind-boggling stats. When you play pretty much the whole season (minus a few quarters in that Chicago game) and only throw 10 INTs. You have really done well. I need to go look at the stats and see if anyone else threw fewer INTs that played 16 games.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

The difference in INT's and sacks taken is huge.

I'm looking foward to seeing Brunell with all the weapons he now has, along with a more aggressive and unpredictable offensive scheme.

Brunell remarked last year that he would rather have more WRs running routes as opposed to keeping in additional protection, I guess this year he'll get his wish!

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Football stats in general, and QB stats in particular, are almost useless in measuring performance.

What you want to know is: How good is the QB?

The QB stats tell how good the QB was plus...

how good his receivers were
how good his protection was
how good his running game was
how good the playcalling was
how good the passing game scheme was
how good his defense was in giving him field position
how good his special teams were in giving him field position

Watching both play this past season, I give them both C's for the year. Both started strongly and finished weakly as expected given their ages and accumulating injuries.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Football stats in general, and QB stats in particular, are almost useless in measuring performance.

What you want to know is: How good is the QB?

The QB stats tell how good the QB was plus...

how good his receivers were
how good his protection was
how good his running game was
how good the playcalling was
how good the passing game scheme was
how good his defense was in giving him field position
how good his special teams were in giving him field position

Watching both play this past season, I give them both C's for the year. Both started strongly and finished weakly as expected given their ages and accumulating injuries.[/quote]

I wouldn't say stats are useless when measuring QBs. I think for one, stats are very telling, especially ints. Even if a QB is having protection issues, or just bad receivers, his ability or inability to get the ball in the proper place is largely up to him. It says a lot about his decision making, accuracy, and timing, ability to read coverages. While it's not an exact measure, I think 90% of the time we can tell a lot about a QB from stats.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Stats aside, we do know for a fact that both Brunell and Bledsoe are pretty old by QB standards.
It'll be interesting to see which one has a better season in 2006.
"Brunell touchdown to Moss... to Lloyd ... to Randle El" all sound good to me.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

W/O OL Allen, you'd think Bledsoe's sacks will increase. Who's backing him up anyway?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]I wouldn't say stats are useless when measuring QBs. I think for one, stats are very telling, especially ints. [/quote]

Some coaches, Mike Martz ,for example, shrug off INTs as part of the risk in a high-powered passing game. Some coaches (Spurrier) want their QB to throw to spots and depend on their receivers to turn defender if the DB is in position for an interception.

Some coaches emphasize run first and are content to dink and dunk while others opt for a riskier but more productive vertical passing game.

In the classic example of how INTs are system-related, Dan Marino fell to 27th in the draft because he had too many INTs in college at Pitt.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Some coaches, Mike Martz ,for example, shrug off INTs as part of the risk in a high-powered passing game. Some coaches (Spurrier) want their QB to throw to spots and depend on their receivers to turn defender if the DB is in position for an interception.

Some coaches emphasize run first and are content to dink and dunk while others opt for a riskier but more productive vertical passing game.

In the classic example of how INTs are system-related, Dan Marino fell to 27th in the draft because he had too many INTs in college at Pitt.[/quote]

While Marino had many INTs in college, he was very efficient in the Pro's. See rookie season. And the reason he fell 27th in the draft [I]could have[/I] had more to do with other things than on the field performance.

Higher risk and ulitmate risk, turning the ball over, are two different things. I'm not suggesting that sometimes we put too much stock into stats, but on the other hand I don't remember a QB who had a high ratio of TDs/INTs ever winning anything.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Aside from injuries, my biggest concern with Brunell has got to be fumbles. Does anyone know how many times he coughed the ball up last season? It seemed like he let go of the ball way too often. I think that with our imporved receiving core defenses will have to drop more people into coverage and Brunell will have more time to find the open man, I just hope he holds onto the ball when he can't.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=EXoffender]W/O OL Allen, you'd think Bledsoe's sacks will increase. Who's backing him up anyway?[/quote]

Hopefully a Houston Texans lineman!

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

bledsoe's higher int stat are directly related to his higher sacked stat. he probably offset a lot of the detriments with the extra 600 yards though.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]

[QUOTE]While Marino had many INTs in college, he was very efficient in the Pro's. See rookie season. [/QUOTE]

You're making my point. Scouts over-emphasized his INTs in college. Those stats were of no value in predicting his performance in the NFL.

[QUOTE]I don't remember a QB who had a high ratio of TDs/INTs ever winning anything.[/QUOTE]

The QBs on winning teams are going to have good stats. The QBs on losing teams are going to have poor stats.

But trying to compare QBs on stats from one team to another doesn't work.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle][quote=12thMan]



You're making my point. Scouts over-emphasized his INTs in college. Those stats were of no value in predicting his performance in the NFL.



The QBs on winning teams are going to have good stats. The QBs on losing teams are going to have poor stats.

But to trying to compare QBs on stats from one team to another doesn't work.[/quote]

True. But I still think stats give us somewhat of a benchmark of overall effectiveness.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=Huddle]Some coaches, Mike Martz ,for example, shrug off INTs as part of the risk in a high-powered passing game. Some coaches (Spurrier) want their QB to throw to spots and depend on their receivers to turn defender if the DB is in position for an interception.

Some coaches emphasize run first and are content to dink and dunk while others opt for a riskier but more productive vertical passing game.

In the classic example of how INTs are system-related, Dan Marino fell to 27th in the draft because he had too many INTs in college at Pitt.[/QUOTE]

An interception is still a turnover and a turnover is never good. If Martz shrugs it off it is probably why he is no longer a head coach. That is what seperates Martz from Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs who hate turnovers and will replace players before putting up with turnovers. They do not accept turnovers. Joe Montana and Steve Young played in mainly passing offenses very similar to Mart's and they had low interception to TD ratios.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

12th Man

[QUOTE]True. But I still think stats give us somewhat of a benchmark of overall effectiveness.[/QUOTE]

You have a measure of the overall effectiveness of the QB when combined with his support system: players, coaches, system.

It's like being told that the length + height + width of a room totals 56 feet. There is no useful purpose for that number.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]12th Man



You have a measure of the overall effectiveness of the QB when combined with his support system: players, coaches, system.

It's like being told that the length + height + width of a room totals 56 feet. There is no useful purpose for that number.[/quote]

Damn dude, you're bringing it today, huh?? :)

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]Damn dude, you're bringing it today, huh?? :)[/quote]

Not just today. I'm an obnoxious SOB on a consistent basis.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Not just today. I'm an obnoxious SOB on a consistent basis.[/quote]

hahaha....cool, nice debate.

I maintain that stats do have some value.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

The stats do have some value if you apply some interpretation. I agree that a QB's stats are somewhat reflective on him, and somewhat reflective of the surrounding circumstances. So in order to gain any real meaning from them, let's interpret:

Regarding the sacks, Bledsoe had almost twice as many as Brunell. Granted Brunell had better protection, especially at the LT spot given the injuries to the Dallas line. But Brunell also managed to avoid some other would-be sacks by rolling out and throwing the ball away.

Regarding INTs, I think this stat goes hand-in-hand with completion percentage. Brunell chose to throw a lot of balls away this year rather than force something, and I'd argue that's the biggest difference between him and Bledsoe. Bledsoe forced more balls than Brunell, and some connected, helping him get to 60%. But he also connected on 7 more INTs than Brunell.

I'd argue those are the two most important stats for a QB. Sacks and INTs. I think Brunell did a better job managing them. He avoided more sacks than Bledsoe did, and he made fewer dumb throws.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Another thing left out in the stats: the number of times Brunell ran for a key 1st down late in the game to keep a drive alive. Without even looking at their rushing statistics, I can confidently say that Brunell did that much more often and much more effectively than Bledsoe.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Another thing left out in the stats: plays in the clutch. Brunell to Moss x2 in the last 5 minutes against Dallas. Perfect throws.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Defensewins]An interception is still a turnover and a turnover is never good. If Martz shrugs it off it is probably why he is no longer a head coach. That is what seperates Martz from Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs who hate turnovers and will replace players before putting up with turnovers. They do not accept turnovers. Joe Montana and Steve Young played in mainly passing offenses very similar to Mart's and they had low interception to TD ratios.[/quote]

Most turnovers are forced just as points are forced on the scoreboard. To say that, in order to win, we must have a positive turnover ratio makes as much sense as saying we need to score more points than we give up.

Obviously, you want players who can produce without making too many costly mistakes. Cooley had a fumbling problem last season but we didn't replace him because his production made it worthwhile to keep him in the lineup.

If cutting down on turnovers prevailed as the supremely important factor in winning, then punting on first down would be good strategy.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Ok guys, I posted like 4th on this thread and mentioned that I wanted to look at the stats to see how many other QBs who played in all 16 games last year had the same or fewer INTs than Brunell. He are my findings..... Peyton Manning had 10 INTs and M. Hasslebeck had only 9 INTs. Jake Plummer was the best of the 16 game players with only 7 INTs, but he only threw 18 TDs. We all also know that Carson Palmer played great for 16 games before getting hurt in the playoffs and had only 12 INTs but threw 32 TDs!

The thing I believe they all have in common is that they all lead their teams to the Playoffs. Taking care of the football is a BIG deal.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]If cutting down on turnovers prevailed as the supremely important factor in winning, then punting on first down would be good strategy.[/quote]

Huddle, come on man. I seriously doubt he was saying that turnovers are the entire reason teams win or lose. I think he was saying that turnovers are the single biggest factor in the outcome of the game. Check this out, the first number represents the team's giveaway/takeaway ratio, the 2nd number is the number of wins they had:

Cincinnati 25 11
Denver 18 13
Carolina 12 11
NY Giants 12 11
Indianapolis 11 14
Jacksonville 10 12
Seattle 9 13
Buffalo 8 5
Pittsburgh 7 11
Kansas City 7 10
Chicago 6 11
Minnesota 5 9
Atlanta 4 8
Tampa Bay 4 11
Detroit 1 5
Miami 0 9
Dallas -1 9
Philadelphia -2 6
Oakland -4 4
Washington -4 10
New England -5 10
Tennessee -5 4
San Diego -6 9
Houston -7 2
Cleveland -7 6
Arizona -10 5
Baltimore -10 6
San Francisco -10 4
St. Louis -14 6
New Orleans -21 3
Green Bay -23 4


It's blatantly obvious that turnovers are the most important factor in a game. It was Bledsoe's sacks and INTs that were the big reason the Cowboys were 9-7 while the Skins were 10-6. I agree that some of that was caused by a substandard supporting cast, but some of it was also caused by bad judgment on throws by Bledsoe and the inability to escape the pass rush with his feet.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=scowan]Ok guys, I posted like 4th on this thread and mentioned that I wanted to look at the stats to see how many other QBs who played in all 16 games last year had the same or fewer INTs than Brunell. He are my findings..... Peyton Manning had 10 INTs and M. Hasslebeck had only 9 INTs. Jake Plummer was the best of the 16 game players with only 7 INTs, but he only threw 18 TDs. We all also know that Carson Palmer played great for 16 games before getting hurt in the playoffs and had only 12 INTs but threw 32 TDs!

The thing I believe they all have in common is that they all lead their teams to the Playoffs. Taking care of the football is a BIG deal.[/quote]

Kinda the point I was making. I would venture to say, without looking at the actual stats, that the QBs with the higher attempts probably had higher ints. as well. So ints alone don't tell the whole story.

That's why I said earlier that stats aren't exactly useless, but they do have to put into context.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Schneed10]
It's blatantly obvious that turnovers are the most important factor in a game. It was Bledsoe's sacks and INTs that were the big reason the Cowboys were 9-7 while the Skins were 10-6. I agree that some of that was caused by a substandard supporting cast, but some of it was also caused by bad judgment on throws by Bledsoe and the inability to escape the pass rush with his feet.[/quote]

Schneed, what you are saying here about bad judgement by QBs is the most obvious reason that Ramsey is not on our beloved team today!

Gibbs could not put up with Ramsey's decision making. At the same time while Brunell is not statistically the best QB, he is above average or better than most at making good decisions with the ball.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

i'd take 32TDs and 12ints to 23 and 10 anyday ;)

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]i'd take 32TDs and 12ints to 23 and 10 anyday ;)[/quote]

Maybe with our new receivers those numbers are a posibility. Wouldn't that be nice.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Brunell vs. Bledsoe ..... who cares; Jason Campbell will be better than either of them!

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=scowan]At the same time while Brunell is not statistically the best QB, he is above average or better than most at making good decisions with the ball.[/quote]

i.e. Taking a sack when it's 4th an the game. :frusty:

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Stats play a pretty nice role in trying to determine future probabilities but they should not be used as definitive source for an argument about who's better. Some stats are definitely misleading. How many people on these boards think Mike Alstott really had 6 touchdown's and not 5?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Schneed10]Huddle, come on man. I seriously doubt he was saying that turnovers are the entire reason teams win or lose. I think he was saying that turnovers are the single biggest factor in the outcome of the game. Check this out, the first number represents the team's giveaway/takeaway ratio, the 2nd number is the number of wins they had:

Cincinnati 25 11
Denver 18 13
Carolina 12 11
NY Giants 12 11
I
Arizona -10 5
Baltimore -10 6
San Francisco -10 4
St. Louis -14 6
New Orleans -21 3
Green Bay -23 4

[etcetera]


It's blatantly obvious that turnovers are the most important factor in a game. [/quote]

Your list confirms that there is a strong correlation between winning and a positive turnover ratio.

Well, there is an even stronger correlation between winning and the points scored to points allowed ratio.

What you are missing is that, like the point ratio, the turnover ratio is an [I]effect [/I]caused by how well the team played. You are confusing effect with cause.

Sure cutting down on INTs is a good idea but no more so than throwing more complete passes.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]What you are missing is that, like the point ratio, the turnover ratio is an [I]effect [/I]caused by how well the team played. You are confusing effect with cause.[/quote]

I'm not missing that. Go back to post #22 where I clearly state what the cause is for Bledsoe's higher INTs and Sacks compared to Brunell.

At some point you're going to have to acknowledge that stats, when analyzed correctly, tell the tale. Any fan can see that Bledsoe is more susceptible to sacks thanks to his tendency to hold onto the ball, and the fact that he runs like my grandmom. Some of those 49 sacks were attributable to bad line play (like the 4 rung up by Phillip Daniels). But some are attributable to Bledsoe himself.

You seem to eschew stats in favor of football analysis. It seems to be plain as day to me what the cause is for all of Bledsoe's sacks.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Sure cutting down on INTs is a good idea but no more so than throwing more complete passes.[/quote]

I disagree - interceptions aren't only momentum/drive killers but they also change possession of the ball immediately - incompletions do not.
At least you have the option of punting with an incompletion.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Sure cutting down on INTs is a good idea but no more so than throwing more complete passes.[/quote]

And this point is just absurd. What would you rather have, complete pass or incomplete pass? What would you rather have, complete pass or interception? Duh.

The real point is I'd rather have an incompletion over an INT any day. So give me a game-managing QB any day of the week over a gunslinger who tends to force plays to happen.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

And taking it even further, what would you rather have?

A) Complete pass for 10 yards, incomplete pass, incomplete pass, incomplete pass, punt for 45 yards.
B) Complete pass for 10 yards, complete pass for 10 yards, complete pass for 10 yards, interception.

I'll take A.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]I disagree - interceptions aren't only momentum/drive killers but they also change possession of the ball immediately - incompletions do not.
At least you have the option of punting with an incompletion.[/quote]

That's true. If you're going to compare it would be something like 3 consecutive incompletions to 1 interception. Either way results most likely in a change of posession.