Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[Huddle]

[quote=12thMan]

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

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.

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[GoSkins!]

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.

But, in this case, we all know a little about the length, width, and height. Also, if you have enough of a sample, (Brunnels overall historical stats) you can start to piece together a more complete picture. These stats do tell us something more than you are admitting. Based on you r reasoning we also can't draw any conclusions about how good Moss was last year based on his stats because we would have to say it was based on the QB, playcalling, blocking, teams played... Brunnel got the QB job last year because he was willing to protect the football.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

But, in this case, we all know a little about the length, width, and height. Also, if you have enough of a sample, (Brunnels overall historical stats) you can start to piece together a more complete picture. These stats do tell us something more than you are admitting. Based on you r reasoning we also can't draw any conclusions about how good Moss was last year based on his stats because we would have to say it was based on the QB, playcalling, blocking, teams played... Brunnel got the QB job last year because he was willing to protect the football.

We heard the phrase "system back" attached to C. Portis when he came here from Denver. The inference was that his stats were jacked up because of Denver's scheme. I'm saying that the stats of all players are heavily influenced by the system they play in.

Jake Plummer's stats make him look like a better QB in Denver than he was with the Cards. If he went to Seatlle, they'd look even better. That West Coast offense would make his numbers look super.

But, how good is Jake Plummer compared to other QBs? We have no way to know from those QB stats.

The best we can do is to form judgments by watching them play.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

We heard the phrase "system back" attached to C. Portis when he came here from Denver. The inference was that his stats were jacked up because of Denver's scheme. I'm saying that the stats of all players are heavily influenced by the system they play in.

Jake Plummer's stats make him look like a better QB in Denver than he was with the Cards. If he went to Seatlle, they'd look even better. That West Coast offense would make his numbers look super.

But, how good is Jake Plummer compared to other QBs? We have no way to know from those QB stats.

The best we can do is to form judgments by watching them play.

there are RAMPANT logical fallacies throughout this post. Maybe jake actually GOT BETTER and that helped his stats improve too. Maybe if y ou watched him you'd know he makes stupid decisions and hasslebeck actually makes far less. that career TD/INT ratio isn't 100% on the QB, but its a weak arguement that the QB isn't the primary factor.

CP left denver and still put up killer stats, so, if the denver system helped him so much, why was he fine in a totally different system?

some guys can play, others can't, and the stats bear that out. All i see is opinion, i don't see any actual research or factual analysis of any kind to prove your case. Since you seem to be the only one in the "stats don't matter" camp, let's see some hard evidence.

[Huddle]

That Guy

There are RAMPANT logical fallacies throughout this post. Maybe jake actually GOT BETTER and that helped his stats improve too.

Could be ...but you don't know one way or the other do you? And, if we could trust the stats, we know with some degree of certainy.

Maybe if y ou watched him you'd know he makes stupid decisions and hasslebeck actually makes far less.

That could be too. But, if I can't watch them play, the way I watched Mark Brunell, I can't use the stats with any confidence that they will help me grade and compare one QB with another.

That career TD/INT ratio isn't 100% on the QB, but its a weak arguement that the QB isn't the primary factor.

Another opinion. Can you give reasons for it?

CP left denver and still put up killer stats, so, if the denver system helped him so much, why was he fine in a totally different system?

If you showed someone the stats, Denver and Washington, without telling them who they belonged to, they'd tell you that Denver's back was clearly superior. They aren't even close. Yet, Clinton is every bit as good here as he was in Denver.

All i see is opinion, i don't see any actual research or factual analysis of any kind to prove your case. Since you seem to be the only one in the "stats don't matter" camp, let's see some hard evidence.

This is a straightforward logical argument...you can't measure A,B,C,D, and E together and assert that you've measured A.

You don't seem to recognize the evidence. Players move from team to team...Moss, Plummer, Portis...there's a long list of players whose stats go sharply up or down depending on their new situations.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Huddle

... But, how good is Jake Plummer compared to other QBs? We have no way to know from those QB stats.

The best we can do is to form judgments by watching them play.

If this is really true, why would Gibbs (or anyone else) care about stats so much? What you are asking us to believe is that, in spite of Gibbs driving home the importance of all the different stats week after week, is that you can't conclude anything from them. This is in direct contradiction to what Gibbs, a three time winning Super Bowl champion (with three different QBs and RBs), believes. I think he has proved that he knows what he is talking about, but you have only proved that you are obstinate.

The truth is the best you can do is form judgments by watching them play AND comparing thier stats. Alone, either can be misleading.

[Huddle]

[GoSkins!]

If this is really true, why would Gibbs (or anyone else) care about stats so much? What you are asking us to believe is that, in spite of Gibbs driving home the importance of all the different stats week after week, is that you can't conclude anything from them. This is in direct contradiction to what Gibbs, a three time winning Super Bowl champion (with three different QBs and RBs), believes. I think he has proved that he knows what he is talking about, but you have only proved that you are obstinate.

You've made an unwarranted assumption namely that the statistics Joe Gibbs uses are the statistics that are under discussion here. You can bet they're not.

It seems to me that you've proven yourself both rude (in calling me "obstinate") and not overly bright.

The truth is the best you can do is form judgments by watching them play AND comparing thier stats. Alone, either can be misleading.

The truth is that you haven't even figured out what's going on here.