Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[12thMan]

[quote=Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Huddle]

12th Man

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

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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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

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

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Huddle

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

hahaha....cool, nice debate.

I maintain that stats do have some value.

[Schneed10]

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.

[Schneed10]

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.

[Schneed10]

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

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

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

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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[scowan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[That Guy]

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