Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[scowan]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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

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

[Skins4Eva]

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

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[724Skinsfan]

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?

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 effect 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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

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

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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Huddle

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

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

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

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.

[Schneed10]

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.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

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.

Right, but with the 3 incompletions and punt, at least you're advancing the ball 40 yards down the field with a punt. With an INT you hand the ball over on the spot.

[Huddle]

Schneed10

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.

You didn't confuse cause and effect in Post 22. You confused it in offering that list correlating winning with the turnover ratio.

At some point you're going to have to acknowledge that stats, when analyzed correctly, tell the tale.

All it will take is a convincing argument.

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.

There are multiple causes for sacks, interceptions, or any stat you have. But in order to measure individual performance, we have to isolate those somehow. Since that can't be done, the stats are almost useless.

I said almost.

The chief value I see for them is to aggravate the hell out of your debate opponents since one can prove any position, no matter how dumb, with a few selected stats.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Right, but with the 3 incompletions and punt, at least you're advancing the ball 40 yards down the field with a punt. With an INT you hand the ball over on the spot.

Oh definitely. I was saying that if you're going to compare.

[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.

I have always thought that J.Gibbs went overboard treating turnovers as though they were a cardinal sin. Then, after the Giants' 36 - 0 loss, a reporter asked him about turnovers...and for the first time since 1981, I heard Joe patiently explain that turnovers are often caused by simply being outplayed (which is what I'm saying here).

A players production and his mistakes have to be weighed together...production on one side of the scale, mistakes on the other.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are comparing one interception to one incompletion. You might disagree if I was doing that in my remarks, but since I didn't..you're disagreeing with something I never said.